Page 151 - ELT_15th August 2020_Vol 373_Part 4

2020 ] SURETEX PROPHYLACTICS INDIA PVT. LTD. v. C.C.E., CUS. & S.T., BANGALORE 485

ly, appellants had unutilized CENVAT Credit and for various reasons same
could not be utilized and appellants were entitled or empowered to seek refund
at any time without reference to limitation. He would also contend that there is
no date or the starting time specified under Rule 5 of Cenvat Rules for the pur-
poses of reckoning limitation to file an application for refund and only by Notifi-
cation No. 14/2016, dated 1-3-2016 the limitation period of one year has been
prescribed as enumerated thereunder and as such, even accepting the contention
of the revenue that limitation of one year would be applicable, then also such
limitation would be applicable only from 1-3-2016 i.e., from the date of issuance
of Notification No. 14/2016 and not earlier to it. In support of his submissions he
has relied upon the following judgments :
(1) 2012 (28) S.T.R. 426 (Mad.) : Commissioner of C. EX., Coimbatore v.
GTN Engineering (I) Ltd.
(2) Notification No. 27/2012-C.E. (N.T.) : New Delhi dated 18th June
2012
(3) 2012 (27) S.T.R. 134 (Kar.) : mPortal India Wireless Soutions P. Ltd. v.
C.S.T., Bangalore
(4) 2005 (185) E.L.T. 19 (Guj.) : Indo-Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd. v. Union of
India
(5) 2018 (12) G.S.T.L. 200 (Tri. - LB) : C.C.E., Cus & S.T., Bengaluru v.
Span Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd.
(6) 2008 (232) E.L.T. 413 (Guj.) : Commissioner of C.Ex. & Customs, Surat-I
v. Swagat Synthetics
(7) 2014 (302) E.L.T. 132 (Tri. - Del.) : Deepak Spinners Ltd. v. Commis-
sioner of Central Excise, Indore
(8) 2015 (39) S.T.R. 230 (Tri. - Ahmd.) : Quality BPO Service Pvt. Ltd. v.
Commissioner of S.T. Ahmedabad
(9) 2016 (42) S.T.R. 760 (Tri. - Mumbai) : Commissioner of C. EX., Pune-III
v. Aam Services India Pvt. Ltd.
(10) 2016 (46) S.T.R. 858 (Tri. - Mumbai) : Oceans Connect India Pvt. Ltd. v.
Commissioner of C.Ex., Pune-III
(11) 2016 (45) S.T.R. 131 (Tri. - Mumbai) : Commissioner of Central Excise,
Pune-I v. SG Analytics Pvt. Ltd.
(12) 1999 (112) E.L.T. 353 (S.C.) : Collector of Central Excise, Pune v. Dai
Ichi Karkaria Ltd.
8. Per contra, Sri Jeevan. J. Neeralgi, Learned Counsel appearing for the
revenue would support the order passed by the CESTAT and contends that Rule
5 of CENVAT Rules would clearly indicate the provider of output service would
be allowed refund of such amount subject to such safeguards, conditions and
limitations, as may be specified by the Central Government by notification and
by virtue of the same Notification No. 27/2012, dated 18-6-2012 which came to be
issued whereunder the provisions of Section 11B of the Act has been made appli-
cable mutatis mutandis insofar as refund claims are concerned and as such, it can-
not be gainsaid by the appellants that refund claims filed beyond the period of
limitation would be entitled for refund.

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th August 2020  151