9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 1105 - AT - Central ExciseRefund claim - unutilized credit lying in the Cenvat account due to closure of the factory - Cenvat got accumulated due to exemption under Notification No. 30/2004-CE dated 9.7.2004 and the goods have been cleared for export - Held that - this issue has been considered by various High Court s judgments as well as two Larger Bench decisions of this Tribunal. It is found that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has not dealt with any of such judgments. Therefore the matter need reconsideration in the light of the judgments of Larger Bench in the case of Gauri Plasticulture (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore 2006 (8) TMI 225 - CESTAT, MUMBAI , Steel Strips Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Ludhiana 2011 (5) TMI 111 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI and Karnataka High Court judgment in the case of Union of India Vs. Slovak India Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. 2006 (7) TMI 9 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT . - Appeal allowed by way of remand
Issues:
- Refund of unutilized credit in Cenvat account - Time limitation for filing refund claim - Interpretation of relevant provisions under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Consideration of accumulated credit due to non-utilization from exports Analysis: 1. Refund of unutilized credit in Cenvat account: The case involved appeals against the rejection of refund claims by the adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding unutilized credit in the Cenvat account of two appellants. The appellants had accumulated Cenvat credit during the shifting of their factory, and they sought a refund of the balance due to closure of the factory. The main contention was that the accumulated credit was a result of non-utilization as the finished goods were exported. The appellant argued that the refund should be allowed as the credit was related to the export of the final product. 2. Time limitation for filing refund claim: The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim as time-barred under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, stating that the claim was filed after the prescribed period from the relevant date of export. The appellant contended that since the refund was sought due to the closure of the factory and the accumulated credit from exports, the limitation period should not apply. The issue of time limitation was a crucial aspect of the case, with the Revenue emphasizing the importance of adhering to the statutory provisions regarding the timeline for filing refund claims. 3. Interpretation of relevant provisions under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004: The arguments put forth by both parties revolved around the interpretation of the provisions under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and the notifications issued thereunder. The appellant relied on various judgments to support their claim that the refund of accumulated credit should not be rejected based on limitation grounds. On the other hand, the Revenue highlighted the statutory requirement of filing refunds within the specified timeframe from the relevant date, as per the rules and notifications. 4. Consideration of accumulated credit due to non-utilization from exports: The Tribunal considered the issue of accumulated credit due to non-utilization resulting from exports, which had not been adequately addressed in the impugned order by the Commissioner (Appeals). Referring to relevant judgments, including those of Larger Benches and High Courts, the Tribunal emphasized the need to reconsider the matter in light of precedents such as Gauri Plasticulture (P) Ltd. and Steel Strips cases. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a comprehensive reconsideration of the entire issue, ensuring the appellants are given a fair opportunity for a personal hearing. Overall, the judgment highlighted the complexities surrounding the refund claims related to unutilized credit in Cenvat accounts, emphasizing the importance of considering the specific circumstances of each case and interpreting the relevant legal provisions in conjunction with established precedents to ensure a just and equitable resolution.
|
