Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2007 (8) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2007 (8) TMI 557 - AT - Central Excise

Issues:
- Rejection of refund claim for unutilized accumulated Modvat credit
- Barred claims due to limitation
- Lack of correlation between input and output for a specific claim

Analysis:
The judgment deals with the rejection of a refund claim amounting to Rs. 3,10,708 filed by the appellants concerning unutilized accumulated Modvat credit. The authorities rejected the claim citing two main reasons: first, that claims related to certain AR.4 numbers were time-barred, and second, that there was a lack of correlation between input and output for another AR.4 number.

Regarding the limitation issue, the judge referred to Notification No. 85/87-C.E., dated 1-3-1987, which allows refunds for specified duties on inputs used in manufacturing final products cleared for export under bond. The judge highlighted that the claim for refund must adhere to the conditions specified in the notification, including submission within the prescribed time limit. In this case, the appellants exported goods between 31-3-1998 to 18-6-1998 under AR.4 No. 1 to 12 but filed the refund claim on 29-12-1998, which exceeded the six-month period specified in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. Consequently, the claim for these AR.4 numbers was rightly rejected due to being time-barred.

Regarding the lack of correlation between input and output for AR.4 No. 13, the judge noted that the appellants failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim that they maintained separate records from the raw material stage to the finished stage for goods exported and those for home consumption. Due to this failure to substantiate their position, the judge upheld the rejection of the refund claim for this specific AR.4 number.

In conclusion, the judge upheld the decision to reject the refund claim based on the grounds of being time-barred for certain AR.4 numbers and the lack of correlation between input and output for another specific claim. The judgment emphasizes the importance of complying with the prescribed conditions and limitations for refund claims under relevant notifications and acts.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates