2016 (11) TMI 872 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim of accumulated Cenvat credit unutilised in their Cenvat credit account Under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Time bar - Held that - I find that under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the refund claim is required to filed once in a quarter i.e. during the pendency to the quarterly if export has been completed, in that case also refund claims required to filed within one year of the last date of the quarter. In this case, only one refund claim is required to be filed for the quarter, in that case, the relevant date is the last date of the quarter. In this case, for the quarter January, 2008 to march, 2008 the refund claim has been filed on 30-3-2009, which is within one year of the last date of quarter. Further, for the refund claim pertains to October, 2008 to December, 2008, the refund claim has been filed on 30-11-2009 which is also within one year of the date of end of quarter. In that circumstances the refund claims filed by the appellant are within time, therefore refund claims cannot be rejected as time barred. Appeal allowed - refund allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection as time-barred under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in exporting services, filed refund claims for unutilized Cenvat credit under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, for the periods of January to March 2008 and October to December 2008. The claims were rejected as time-barred by the adjudicating authority, citing Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant challenged this decision, leading to a remand where some claims were sanctioned, but others were rejected on the same grounds. The appellant argued that the claims were filed within the required time limit, relying on the rule that one refund claim per quarter should be filed within one year of the end of that quarter. The appellant cited relevant case laws to support this contention.

The respondent, however, contended that the claims were filed beyond one year from the date of export, as initially determined by the Commissioner (Appeals), and that the appellant did not challenge this determination. The respondent argued that the case laws cited by the appellant were not applicable in this context. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal analyzed the submissions and found that under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, a refund claim must be filed once per quarter within one year of the quarter's end. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had indeed filed the claims within the stipulated time frame for both quarters in question. Citing the case laws referred to by the appellant, the Tribunal held that the refund claims could not be rejected as time-barred. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed with any necessary relief.