2014 (4) TMI 335 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of refund claim - Bar of limitation - refund of cenvat credit - export - Held that - Period of refund claim is January 2004 to March 2004 and the claim was filed on 29.3.2005 - Commissioner (Appeals) also observed that refund claim was filed within a period of one year from the quarter ending March 2004 - An attempt was made by the Ld. AR that decision of JCT Ltd. (2013 (12) TMI 583 - CESTAT NEW DELHI) would not apply in this case as in that case, it was related to EPCG scheme and he submits that both the case laws related to Rule 57F of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules and therefore it is not applicable in the present case. I find that Rule 57F is pari materia to Rule 5 of the Cenvat Cedit rules, 2004. It is noted that both the cases, JCT Ltd. (supra) and STI India Ltd. (2008 (10) TMI 246 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE) are related to refund of unutilized credit on the exported goods. In the present case, I find that refund claim was filed on the unutilized credit on the export goods - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against the refund claim filed by the Respondent under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 not barred by limitation.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by Revenue against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the refund claim filed by the Respondent under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. The respondents, engaged in manufacturing textile articles, filed a refund claim for goods exported during February and March 2004. The adjudicating authority rejected the claim citing availing of drawback claim and limitation issues. The Commissioner (Appeals) modified the order, holding that the refund claim was not barred by limitation. Revenue challenged this aspect of the order.

2. The Ld. Authorized Representative for Revenue argued that the refund claim must be filed before the expiry period specified in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He pointed out an amendment to the notification allowing claims for each calendar month. He relied on a Tribunal decision regarding the relevant dates for export of goods. Conversely, the Ld. Advocate for the respondent cited precedents where delays in filing refund applications were not sole grounds for rejection, emphasizing the need for a flexible approach.

3. The Tribunal noted that the refund claim period was January to March 2004, filed on 29.3.2005. Following precedents, it was observed that refunds should be allowed when manufacturers cannot utilize credit against exported goods. The Tribunal referenced a High Court decision emphasizing that strict adherence to the limitation period may not be necessary in certain cases. Another Tribunal decision highlighted the absence of a specific date from which the limitation period should be counted for cash refund claims under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002.

4. The Tribunal rejected Revenue's argument that previous cases were not applicable, as they related to different rules. It clarified that Rule 57F and Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 were similar, both involving refund of unutilized credit on exported goods. Relying on the decisions of the High Court and Tribunal, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order, stating that the refund claim was not hit by limitation. The appeal by Revenue was consequently rejected.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues involved, arguments presented by both parties, relevant legal precedents, and the final decision reached by the Tribunal.