Order date – 16 November 2022

 Facts –

• The Appellant, M/s. Minvesta Infotech Ltd. is engaged in providing and exporting services of software development and maintenance services. They are registered with the Department under the category ‘Information Technology Software Services’. 
• They filed six refund claims on 5.10.2017 of accumulated CENVAT credit for the period October 2015 to March 2017 in terms of Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.6.2012.
• The refund sanctioning authority rejected some of the refund claims on the ground of being time-barred and also as inadmissible CENVAT availed.

Issue –

• Whether the appellant can claim refund of time-barred CENVAT credit?

Order –

• The Tribunal observed that the appellant has filed separate claims for each quarter. There has been no clubbing of different quarters on the part of the appellant while filing of the refund claims. The Tribunal at appellate stage cannot club the refund claims of different quarters and then consider the period of limitation.
• If the refund is denied, an assessee would be able to take recredit. The appellant complied with the condition and debited in their CENVAT account before filing refund claims. Now although these claims have been rejected as time-barred, they are not able to take recredit. 
• As the proceedings have emanated by filing refund claims under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 27/2012, the adjudication has been only in terms of the above and not under the provisions of Section 142 of GST, 2017. The Tribunal being a creature of the statute cannot grant reliefs extraneous to the adjudication.
• However, the appellant is at liberty to seek relief in respect of recredit and consequent refund as they are eligible for recredit in terms of Notification No.27/2012. Hence the appeal is dismissed.