PER : DR. D.M. MISRA

These three appeals are filed against respective Orders-in Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals), Mysuru, more or less involved common issues but different period, are taken up together for hearing and disposal.

2.1. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that in appeal No. E/21704/2018, the appellant had filed a cash refund claim of accumulated cenvat credit for Rs.1,11,09,742/- for the quarter October 2012 to December 2012 on 05.12.2013 under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR, 2004) read with Notification No.27/2012-CE(NT) dated 18.06.2012. A show-cause notice was issued to them on 11.02.2014 pointing out certain discrepancy in the refund claim filed which was responded by the appellant through their reply dated 12.03.2014. On adjudication, the refund claim was rejected. Aggrieved by the said order, they filed appeal before the learned Commissioner(Appeals) who also rejected their appeal. Hence, they filed appeal before the CESTAT and vide Final Order No.22034-22040/2017 dated 29.08.2017, the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration of the refund claim. Also, in appeal No. E/21705/2018, refund claim for an amount of Rs.1,11,15,319/- filed for the period from January 2013 to March 2013, on rejection of the said claim, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) and on rejection of appeal, the appellant approached the Tribunal which remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for de novo consideration. In the de novo proceedings of the above two matters, the adjudicating authority, relating to appeal No. E/21704/2018, sanctioned part of the refund claim i.e Rs.28,96,905/- for the period October 2012 to December 2012 under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR, 2004) and rejected an amount of Rs.82,12,837/- as barred by limitation. Learned Commissioner(Appeals) upheld the said order. Hence, the appeal E/21704/2018.

2.2. Similarly with regard to appeal E/21705/2018 in de novo proceedings, the adjudicating authority sanctioned refund of Rs.1,05,02,950/- for the quarter January 2013 to March 2013; Rs.1,23,65,750/- for the quarter April 2013 to June 2013 and Rs.1,30,46,223/- for the quarter July 2013 to September 2013 and rejected an amount of Rs.6,12,369/- for the quarter January 2013 to March 2013 and Rs.3,87,900/- for the quarter July 2013 to September 2013 in accordance with formula prescribed under the Notification No.27/2012-CE(NT) dated 18.06.2012.

2.3. With regard to appeal No. E/21703/2018, cash refund claim of accumulated cenvat credit was filed on 11.05.2017 for Rs.1,07,13,279/- for the period April 2016 to June 2016. On adjudication, an amount of Rs.44,38,768/- was sanctioned for the quarter April 2016 to June 2016 and amount of Rs.62,74,511/- was rejected as barred by limitation. Aggrieved by the said order, they filed appeal before the learned Commissioner(Appeals) who in turn rejected their appeal. Hence, the present appeal.

3.1. At the outset, the learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the appellant are engaged in the manufacture of process plants, material handling equipment etc. which are substantially exported resulting to accumulation of cenvat credit. Consequently, they filed refund claims of unutilised cenvat credit as per Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 read with Notification No.27/2012-CE dated 18.06.2012. He has submitted that with regard to refund claims involved in appeal E/21704/2018 and E/21705/2018, refund claims were initially rejected and later approaching the Tribunal, the same were remanded to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration of the refund claims, vide Tribunal’s Final Order No.22034-22040/2017 dated 29.08.2017. He has submitted that in the de novo proceedings, an amount of Rs.82,12,837/- (E/21704/2018) was rejected on the ground of limitation. Responding to the said rejection by the adjudicating authority, later upheld by the learned Commissioner(Appeals), he has submitted that the