Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Exilant Technologies Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Service Tax Bangalore ... on 30 May, 2017
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Appeal(s) Involved: ST/21089/2016-SM [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 738 - 745/2016 dated 31/05/2016 passed by Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals), Bangalore.] M/s. Exilant Technologies Pvt. Ltd No. 27 & 27/1, P Kalinga Rao Road, (mission Road) BANGALORE - 560027 KARNATAKA Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Service Tax BANGALORE SERVICE TAX- I 1ST TO 5TH FLOOR, TTMC BUILDING, above BMTC BUS STAND,DOMLUR BANGALORE, - 560071 KARNATAKA Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. Akbar Basha, CA HIRAGANGE & ASSOCIATES #1010, 1st floor(Above Corp. Bank) 26th Main, 4th T Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore - 560041 Karnataka For the Appellant Mrs. Kavitha Podwol, AR For the Respondent Date of Hearing: 30/05/2017 Date of Decision: 30/05/2017 CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Final Order No. 20807 / 2017 Per : S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 31.5.2016 passed by the Commissioner (A) wherein the Commissioner (A) has rejected the refund claim filed under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR), 2004 on the ground of time bar.
2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is a service provider registered with STPI, Bangalore under the service tax under the category of Management Consultants, Maintenance or Repair service, Business Auxiliary Service and Information Technology Software Service. The appellant had an accumulated CENVAT credit and they were unable to utilize the same and therefore, they filed refund claim for the period April 2011 to September 2011 on 22.2.2013 for an amount of Rs.44,33,144/- in Form-A prescribed under Notification No.5/2006 dated 14.3.2006 under Rule 5 of CCR. Thereafter, a show-cause notice proposing to deny the refund was issued and after complying with the due process of law, the Revenue rejected the refund claim vide Order-in-Original dated 30.9.2014. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (A) and the Commissioner (A) vide the impugned order rejected the refund claim by holding that the same has not been filed within one year from the relevant date as specified in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed the present appeal.
3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed by ignoring the statutory provisions and the judicial decisions. He further submitted that in a refund claim filed under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004, time limit is not applicable as held in the following cases:
* Sanghi Textiles Ltd.: 2006 (206) ELT 854 (Tri.-Bang.) * mPortal India Wireless Solutions P. Ltd. vs. CST: 2012 (27) STR 134 (Kar.) * CCE vs. Rangdhara Polymers: 2011 (264) ELT 275 (Tri.-Ahmd.) * CCE vs. Anjani Synthetics Ltd.: 2001 (132) ELT 688 (Tri.-Mum.) * Elcomponics Sales Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE: 2012 (279) ELT 280 (Tri.-Del.) * CCE vs. JCT Ltd.: 2013 (296) ELT 426 (Tri.-Del.) * Deepak Spinners Ltd. vs. CCE, Indore: 2014 (302) ELT 132 (Tri.-Del.)
4. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that the refund claim has been rightly rejected as the same was filed beyond one year from the relevant date. In support of this claim, she relied upon the following decisions:
* Mafatlal Industries Ltd. vs. UOI: 1997 (89) ELT 247 * Anam Electrical Manufacturing Company: 1997 (90) ELT 260 * CCE, Hyderabad-II vs. Excel Telecom Ltd. reported in 2006 (206) ELT 303 * Sarita Handa Exports (P) Ltd. vs. UOI reported in 2015 (321) ELT 434 (P&H)
5. After considering the submissions of both the parties, I am of the view that in the present case, there is no infirmity in the impugned order in view of the judgments of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Anam Electricals and Mafatlal Industries Ltd. cited supra. Consequently, I hold that refund claim is time barred and therefore, I dismiss the appeal of the appellant.
(Operative portion of the Order was pronounced in Open Court on 30/05/2017.) S.S GARG JUDICIAL MEMBER rv 4