9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (5) TMI 682 - AT - Central ExciseDenial of refund claim - CENVAT Credit - Bar of limitation - non-supply of documents/ information by the appellant to the Revenue to ascertain appellant s eligibility to refund claim under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that - time-bar of one year will be applicable to the refunds filed under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification issued under this Rule - as per the provisions of the Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, refund of CENVAT credit taken on inputs/ input services used in the manufacture of export goods is only to be made. Therefore, the person claiming refund is bound to prove that a particular quantity of inputs/ input services involving CENVAT Credit have gone into the production of exported goods - on the basis of these documents Revenue cannot ascertain that particular quantities of various inputs/ input services involving particular amount of various duties/tax have been used in the export goods - at page 29 of the appeal papers, there is a detail of various duties involved in the refund claim of ₹ 4,74,415/-, but the supporting Annexures A , A1, and A2 are not there. Similarly, there are no such details on record before this bench in respect of refund claim - Decided against assessee.
Issues involved:
1. Rejection of refund claims under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 2. Grounds of rejection: Non-supply of documents and details for verifying eligibility and time-bar under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Analysis: Issue 1: Rejection of refund claims under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004: The appeal was filed against the Orders-in-Appeal rejecting refund claims of Rs. 4,74,415/- and Rs. 14,89,063/- due to accumulated CENVAT Credit from the export of goods. The original adjudicating authority rejected the claims citing lack of documents to verify eligibility and time-bar under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Issue 2: Grounds of rejection - Non-supply of documents and details for verifying eligibility and time-bar under Section 11B: The appellant argued that the refund claims were not time-barred under Section 11B, referencing relevant case laws. On the contrary, the respondent contended that the appellant failed to provide necessary documents to prove eligibility, and the lower authorities rightly rejected the claims. The Tribunal found that the refund claims were rejected based on two grounds: lack of documents to verify eligibility and time-bar under Section 11B. Analysis of Time-Bar Nature of Refund Claims: The appellant argued that the limitation specified under the notification issued under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules did not apply to the refund claims filed under the same rule. Citing judgments, the appellant highlighted the absence of a time limit for such refund claims. However, the respondent relied on a Madras High Court judgment to support the rejection based on limitation. The Tribunal analyzed the interpretations of various judgments and concluded that a time-bar of one year would be applicable to refunds filed under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Analysis of Non-Supply of Documents for Verifying Eligibility: The Tribunal observed that as per the Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, refund of CENVAT credit for inputs used in the manufacture of export goods requires proof of input usage. The appellant failed to provide adequate documents to demonstrate the input usage in exported goods. The absence of supporting annexures and details hindered the Revenue from verifying the input quantities and duties involved. Consequently, the appeals were rejected based on the lack of sufficient documentation. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claims due to the appellant's failure to provide necessary documents to establish eligibility and the imposition of a one-year time-bar for filing such claims under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
|
