9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (4) TMI 220 - AT - Central ExciseRefund claim in cash - time limitation - Held that - the cash refund of accumulated Cenvat Credit for the quarter April 2007 June 2007 was filed by the appellant on 30.6.2008; also, it is not in dispute that if the date of export is considered as the relevant date then the refund application would be hit by limitation - appeal dismissed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Appeal against rejection of cash refund claim of accumulated CENVAT Credit for a specific quarter based on the period of filing the claim. Analysis: The appeal was filed against the rejection of a cash refund claim of accumulated CENVAT Credit for the quarter April 2007 to June 2007. The appellant claimed that the refund was filed within the prescribed period under Notification No. 5/2016-CE(NT) but was rejected on grounds of being beyond one year. The appellant argued that the date of export should not be the cut-off date for the refund claim period. The appellant cited relevant cases to support their contention, including CCE&C, Surat I vs Swagat Synthetics and John Kells BPO Solutions (I) P Ltd vs CCE&ST, Gurgaon. On the other hand, the Revenue representative referred to judgments by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in similar cases. The Tribunal examined the facts and found that the refund claim was indeed filed on 30.6.2008 for the specified quarter. The key issue was whether the refund claim was time-barred. The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue's argument that the issue had been settled by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in GTN Engg (I) Ltd case. The Tribunal considered the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal quoted the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court, emphasizing the importance of the date on which the final products are cleared for export as the relevant date for claiming refund of CENVAT credit. Moreover, the Tribunal highlighted the Madras High Court's analysis of the Gujarat High Court's decision in the Swagat Synthetics case, stating that the absence of a time limit under sub Rule (13) of Rule 57F of CER, 1944 made the principle inapplicable to the present case. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the impugned order. The judgment was pronounced on 31/03/2017 by Dr. D. M. Misra, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD.
|
