9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (1) TMI 1276 - AT - Central Excise100% EOU - refund claim - unutilised CENVAT credit - Time Bar - Held that - the learned Commissioner (A) has wrongly interpreted the relevant date as prescribed in Section 11B. As per the said provision, the last date of the quarter i.e., 30.12.2011 should have been considered as the relevant date and not the first date of the export. Therefore, only an amount of ₹ 12,821/- relates to accumulated CENVAT credit attributable for the period from 1.10.2011 to 11.10.2011 is time barred and the rest of the claim amounting to ₹ 1,31,942/- is very much within the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - the appellant is entitled to refund of ₹ 1,31,942/- which is within time and reject the rest of the refund claim to the extent of ₹ 12,821/- as time barred - appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Refund claim time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. Analysis: The appellant, a 100% EOU engaged in manufacturing and exporting fabrics, filed a refund claim seeking unutilized CENVAT credit of ?1,44,763 for the period October 2011 to December 2011. The claim was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner as time-barred under Section 11B. The appellant contended that only a portion of the claim was time-barred, while the rest was within the limitation period. The Commissioner (A) upheld the rejection, leading to the present appeal. The appellant argued that the impugned order violated Section 11B by considering the first 'LET Export' date as the relevant date for the entire claim period. They asserted that the last 'LET Export' date, 30.12.2011, should have been deemed the relevant date. The appellant highlighted that only ?12,821 of the claim was time-barred, while ?1,31,942 fell within the limitation period. The AR supported the order's findings. The Tribunal found the Commissioner (A) had misinterpreted the relevant date under Section 11B. It held that 30.12.2011, being the last date of the quarter, should have been considered the relevant date. Consequently, only ?12,821 of the claim was time-barred, and the remaining ?1,31,942 was within the limitation period. The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, granting a refund of ?1,31,942 and rejecting ?12,821 as time-barred. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
|
