9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (4) TMI 29 - CGOVT - Central ExciseRefund claim for the unutilized cenvat credit - jurisdiction of revision authority - period of limitation for filing of appeal - applicant filed this Revision Application after expiry of more than 9 months from date of receipt of impugned Order-in-Appeal - Exemption under Notification No. 30/2004-CE dated 09.07.04 - Held that - revision application is filed on 21.8.2012 against the impugned orders-in-appeal No. 261/10 dated 07.12.2010. The said application is filed after the expiry of 3 months initial time period and also even after the lapse of condonable-period of 3 months. The revision application filed after stipulated time period is clearly time barred and is not maintainable at all. Applicant has claimed that said order was received on 1.1.12. But no evidence has been produced in support of their claim of receiving said order on 1.1.12. So this contention is not acceptable. As such this revision application is time barred. Refund of unutilized cenvat credit which is not covered under section 35EE read with first proviso to section, 35B(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944. As such, the revision application filed beyond jurisdiction is not maintainable before central Government under section 35EE. Applicant can avail the available appellate remedy under section 35B before Hon'ble CESTAT in accordance with the provision of law. - Decided against assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Refund of unutilized CENVAT credit. 2. Time limit for filing the revision application. 3. Jurisdiction of the Central Government under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Detailed Analysis: 1. Refund of Unutilized CENVAT Credit: The applicants, engaged in processing fabrics, initially paid central excise duty and availed CENVAT credit on inputs under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 & 2004. They later opted for an exemption under Notification No. 30/2004-CE dated 09.07.04 and ceased paying duty on their final products. Consequently, the accumulated CENVAT credit remained unutilized. The applicants sought a refund of Rs. 23,03,515/- of this unutilized credit, which was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner on the grounds that there is no provision in the Central Excise Act, 1944 for such a refund. The applicants argued that their claim is supported by Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and various judicial precedents, including the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court, which upheld the eligibility for a refund of unutilized CENVAT credit when an assessee exits the Modvat scheme or closes the factory. 2. Time Limit for Filing the Revision Application: The applicants filed the revision application after more than 9 months from the date of receipt of the impugned Order-in-Appeal. According to Section 35EE(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the time limit for filing a revision application is three months, with a possible extension of an additional three months if justified. The application was filed after the permissible period, making it time-barred. The applicants claimed to have received the order on 01.01.2012, but no evidence was provided to support this claim. The government emphasized that adherence to the prescribed time limit is mandatory and any application filed beyond this period cannot be entertained. 3. Jurisdiction of the Central Government under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944: The government noted that the issue of refund of unutilized CENVAT credit is not covered under Section 35EE read with the first proviso to Section 35B(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore, the revision application was filed beyond the jurisdiction of the Central Government under Section 35EE. The applicants were advised to seek appellate remedy under Section 35B before the Hon'ble CESTAT in accordance with the provision of law. Conclusion: The revision application was rejected on the grounds of being time-barred and beyond the jurisdiction of the Central Government under Section 35EE. The applicants were directed to pursue the appropriate appellate remedy.
|
