2016 (12) TMI 23 - AT - Central Excise

Rejection of refund claim - additional duties of excise - Notification No. 5/2006-CE(NT) dated 14.03.2006 as amended by Notification No. 13/2007-CE(NT) dated 01.03.2007 - time bar - Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules does not cover a situation where the refund can be granted in respect of final products cleared for domestic consumption - Held that - the Hon ble Madras High Court in CCE Coimbatore vs. GTN Engineering (I) Ltd. 2011 (8) TMI 960 - MADRAS HIGH COURT examined similar set of facts. It was held that the notification prescribed a period of one year as provided under Section 11B for making the application for refund. The Hon ble High Court recorded that though no specific relevant date is prescribed in the Notification the relevant date must be the date on which the final products are cleared for export. If any other conclusion is arrived it will result in disentitling any person to make a claim for cenvat credit. Accordingly the Hon ble High Court held that time period of one year should be reckoned the date of export of goods. As such we find that the impugned order is correct with reference to rejection of this claim. Regarding the refund of input duty of 29, 57, 205/- claimed under Rule 5 we note that the said inputs have been used in the manufacture of goods cleared for home consumption. In such situation provisions of Rule 5 has no application and as such we find no justification to interfere with the findings of the lower authority. Appeal dismissed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of refund claim of additional duties of excise relating to input credit for goods exported and inputs used for products cleared for home consumption.

Analysis:
1. The appellant's appeal was against the rejection of their refund claim of additional duties of excise. The claim consisted of two components: one related to input credit for goods used in the manufacture of final products exported, and the other related to inputs used in products cleared for home consumption. The first amount was rejected due to being time-barred, as the refund claim was filed beyond the specified period. The second amount was rejected on the grounds that Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules does not cover situations where refunds can be granted for final products cleared for domestic consumption.

2. The appellant filed the refund claim under specific notifications, and the condition for filing the refund required it to be done before the expiry of the period specified in the Central Excise Act. The appellant exported goods in 2004 and filed the refund claim in 2007, which was beyond the one-year period from the date of shipment. The appellant argued that they filed the claim within one year of a clarification by the Board, but the order observed that the clarification did not extend the statutory time limit for the refund. The Tribunal referred to a decision by the Madras High Court, which held that the relevant date for claiming a refund should be the date of export of goods. Therefore, the rejection of the claim on the grounds of being time-barred was found to be correct.

3. Regarding the refund claim for input duty related to goods cleared for home consumption, the provisions of Rule 5 were found not applicable. The Tribunal upheld the lower authority's decision to reject this claim as well. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed based on these findings.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the issues involved and the reasoning behind the decision to reject the appellant's refund claims.