HCL Technologies Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST (CESTAT Allahabad)
CESTAT Allahabad held that extended period of limitation is not invocable since alleged inadmissible cenvat credit was duly reflected in the return. Accordingly, demand beyond normal period of limitation set aside.
Facts- Appellant is a global IT services company engaged in the development of SOFTWARE & Exporting thereof through internet from its centers at Bangalore, Chennal, Gurgaon. Hyderabad etc to various customers situated outside India. As the appellant is mainly exporting ITS/ITE Service as per Export of Service Rules, 2005 they were not in position to utilize Cenvat credit from its input services. They had applied their first refund claim on 14.05.2009 under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No.5/2006-CE (NT) dated 14th March, 2006 for the period from 16.05.2008 to 30.06.2008 along with documents as required for claiming refund claim. For subsequent periods they filed the refund claims at regular interval.
On scrutiny of the documents submitted along with the refund claims filed, it was observed that appellant had irregularly availed Cenvat credit and accordingly, show cause notice was issued alleging inadmissible credit amount to Rs. 31,05,05,904/- availed during the period from April 2007 to September 2011. The demand was confirmed vide the impugned order.
