Case Law Details
Vestas Technology R&D Chennai Private Ltd. Vs The Commissioner of GST & CE (CESTAT Chennai)
During the course of hearing learned consultant for the appellants could not produce documents to prove that the claims filed by the appellants were in time as enunciated by the larger Bench in the case of M/s. Span Infotech India Pvt Ltd , Thus, it was not possible for us to verify the claim of the appellants that the respective refund applications have been filed within one year of realization of the export proceeds in the relevant quarter. Under such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that this Bench will not be in a position to decide whether or not the different claims filed by the appellants are covered by the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of M/s. Span Infotech (supra). For the limited purpose of verification of the relevant dates of realization of export proceeds and the dates of filing of the refund claims, the matter should go back to the original authority to verify the same and to grant applicable refund to the appellants in the light of the principle laid down by the Larger Bench in the case of M/s. Span Infotech (supra). Accordingly, we are inclined to remit the matter to the original authority for verification keeping in view our findings and observations as above.
In the result, the appeals are allowed by way of remand to the original authority. It is directed that the appellants shall produce the relevant documents/records, they wish to rely upon, before the original authority within four weeks of receipt of this order. The original authority shall dispose of the claims within further period of 12 weeks, as far as it may be practicable, of the receipt of said documents from the appellants.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT CHENNAI ORDER
The appellants M/s. Vestas Technology R&D Chennai Pvt. Ltd. are engaged in export of services like Consulting Engineering, Maintenance and Repair and Business Support Services. They have availed Cenvat credit on various inputs services. As they could not utilize the accumulated Cenvat credit they have been filing quarterly refund claims under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No.27/2012–CE (NT) dt. 18.06.2012. The department was of the opinion that the refund claims filed by the appellants for the period April 2012 to December 2013 are hit by limitation and they are liable to be rejected on the ground that they have been filed beyond one year of date of invoice. Show Cause Notices were accordingly issued. The original authority has confirmed the allegations in the show cause notice and rejected the refund claims. The appellate authority, vide Orders-in-Appeal No.43-49/2017 dated 20.02.2017, has upheld such rejection. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon CCE Coimbatore Vs GTN Engineering (I) Ltd. – 2012 (281) ELT 185 (Mad.) and CC Bangalore Vs Spice Telecom – 2006 (203) ELT 538 (SC).
Please become a member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
