Page 150 - ELT_15th August 2020_Vol 373_Part 4

484 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

RE : CEA No. 35/2018 :
4. Appellant having registered with the Service Tax Department under
the category of services viz., “Information Technology Software Service” and
exporting the service, had taken CENVAT credit on input services and submitted
applications for refund of unutilized CENVAT credits accumulated on account of
export of service for the period October 2009 upto September 2012. The adjudi-
cating authority rejected the applications for refund on the ground that it was
submitted after expiry of one year relevant under Section 11B of the Act and the
‘relevant date’ adopted for the purposes of computation of limitation was con-
strued as the date on which service was exported and held no export invoice per-
taining to the claim period had been submitted. The appellate authority by order
dated 26-10-2016 rejected the appeals on the ground of applications for refund
having been filed beyond the period of one year namely, after the date of expiry
of period prescribed under terms of Section 11B of the Act. The further appeal
filed before the CESTAT by the assessee was not accepted and while dismissing
the appeals it came to be observed by the tribunal that ‘relevant date’ which is to
be construed would be the date as indicated in Section 11B of the Central Excise
Act, which would be applicable to the provisions of Finance Act, 1994.
RE : CEA No. 25/2018 :
5. Appellant is registered with the Service Tax Department under the
category of services viz., ‘scientific and technical consultancy services’ and is also
engaged in the manufacture of aeroplane components and registered with the
Central Excise Department. A refund claim for Rs. 4,70,762/- was filed on 25-6-
2010 being the unutilized input service credit under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Cred-
it Rules for the period April to June 2009. The adjudicating authority by order
dated 18-11-2011 rejected the claim on the ground of having been filed beyond
period of one year from which the appellant exported their final products i.e.,
bearing equipment and mechanical parts to be fitted into aerojets engines to their
clients abroad and on the ground that refund claim under Rule 5 of CENVAT
Rules read with Notification 5/2006 is to be filed before expiry of one year and
also on the ground that appellant had failed to submit the statutory documents
to substantiate the claim for export. Being aggrieved by the same, an appeal was
filed, which also came to be rejected by arriving at a conclusion that relevant date
should be the date on which the export of goods was made. Further appeal to the
CESTAT was also rejected on the ground that time-limit of one year from the
date of export is applicable and the refund application filed was time-barred
namely, filed after one year. Hence, these appeals have been filed by the respec-
tive appellants.
6. We have heard the arguments of Sri M.S. Nagaraj and Sri Dakshina
Murthy, Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants in all these cases and Sri
Jeevan J. Neeralgi, Learned Counsel appearing for the revenue.
7. It is the contention of Sri M.S. Nagaraj, Learned Advocate appearing
for appellants that Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules do not prescribe any
time-limit for claiming refund and as such, Section 11B of the Central Excise Act,
which prescribes a time-limit of one year cannot be read into the said notification
only on account of there being reference to it. He would also contend that appel-
lants are entitled to seek refund without reference to limitation and undisputed-
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th August 2020  150