2010 (8) TMI 314 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of cenvat cedit on export - rejected by the original authority on the ground of time-bar assessee claiming refund of CENVAT credit already taken by them which could not be utilized as they have accumulated due to exports as specifically provided under Rule 5 Herld that - Tribunal in the case of Swagat Synthetics and it was held that credit lying in RG-23A account accumulated arising out of export is akin to credit in the PLA and the time-limit shall not apply

Summary

Issues:
Refund claims rejection under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 based on lack of documents and time-barred claims.

Analysis:
The six appeals arose from common Order-in-Appeal Nos. 122 to 127/2009-C.E., where refund claims under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 were rejected by the original authority and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellants, a 100% EOU manufacturing valves, exported their products, leading to accumulation of unutilized credit. The rejection was primarily due to insufficient documentation supporting the claim of refund related to exported goods' input credit and being time-barred.

The appellants argued that due to voluminous export credit documents and selective verification, the authorities' rejection was unjust. They cited precedents like Swagat Synthetics Ltd. v. CCE, Surat and STI India Ltd. v. CCE, Indore to support their claim that the time limit under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act does not apply to refunds of accumulated export credit.

The learned SDR contended that the refund process is governed by Notification No. 5/2006-C.E. (N.T.) and emphasized the importance of proper documentation and post-export credit claims. The authorities rejected claims based on lack of document corroboration with exported product inputs and time-barred considerations.

The Tribunal found the rejection erroneous, emphasizing the appellants' eligibility for credit refund as per Rule 5. It clarified that the time limit under Section 11B does not apply to accumulated export credit, as supported by past judgments. The stipulation for quarterly claims aims at administrative ease, not imposing a time limit. The refund should relate to credit on inputs of goods already exported. The burden of proof lies with the appellants, prompting a remand for producing necessary documents.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' orders, remanding the matter for reconsideration in line with the directions provided, granting the appellants another opportunity to substantiate their refund claims with proper documentation on a quarter-wise basis.