2018 (7) TMI 77 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – 100% EOU – Refund for unutilized cenvat credit – rejection on the ground of time limitation, non-registration of premises, nexus of input services with output services and also on the ground that the adjudicating authority added the turnover of the SEZ units also thereby reducing the eligibility of the refund amount – Held that:- In the case of service providers exporting 100% of their services, there should not be any dispute with regard to time bar – refund claim is not hit by time bar.
–
Refund claim rejection on the ground of non-registration of premises – Held that:- The issue whether respondent is eligible for credit before registration of the premises is decided in the case of m-Portal India Wireless Solutions P. Ltd. Vs CST Bangalore [2011 (9) TMI 450 – KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], where it was held that Registration not compulsory for refund.
–
Refund claim rejection on the ground of addition of turnover of the SEZ units to that of t
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
akrishnan, Consultant For the Respondent ORDER Per Bench The MAs filed by Revenue for change of cause title are allowed. 2. The above appeals are filed by the department aggrieved by the order of Commissioner (Appeals) who set aside the order passed by the original authority rejecting the refund claim filed by the respondent (assessee) on various grounds. 3. On behalf of the appellant, Ld. A.R. Shri K.P. Muralidharan reiterated the grounds of appeal stated in the appeals filed by the department. 4.1 On behalf of respondent, the Ld. Consultant Shri Srikanth Balakrishnan explained that respondent is a 100% EOU filed refund for unutilized cenvat credit in terms of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No.5/2005-CE (NT) dt. 1.3.2006. The original authority rejected the refund claim on various grounds which are as under: (i) The refund claims are hit by time bar since the refund claims for the period 2008-09 have been filed by the respondent in the year 2011. (ii) C
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
f credit of the past period in subsequent quarters. So also, it is noted that in the case of service providers exporting 100% of their services, there should not be any dispute with regard to time bar. Taking note of the aforesaid circular, we hold that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly granted the relief, wherein the refund claim is not hit by time bar. 7. The issue whether respondent is eligible for credit before registration of the premises is decided in the case of m-Portal India Wireless Solutions P. Ltd. Vs CST Bangalore – 2011-TIOL-928-HC-KAR-ST = 2012 (STR) ELT 134 (Kar.). Following the same, we hold the issue in favour of respondent. 8. With regard to the issue of adding the turnover of the SEZ units to that of the total turnover of the respondent the Commissioner (Appeals) has discussed in para 5.2 we find that the formula applied by the Commissioner (Appeals) excluding the turnover of the SEZ units is correct and proper. 9. The next issue is with regard to the credit al
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =