2017 (9) TMI 445 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of unutilsed CENVAT credit - denial on the ground of time limitation and also on the ground that credit was availed for the period in question - Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that - The provisions of N/N. 27/2012-CE(NT), dt. 18 06 2012 mandates for filing of one refund claim by the manufacturer of goods within one year from the end of the quarter - An application for refund claim was filed on 30.08.2013 for the exports made by them during the period July to September 2012 and claimed the refund for the balance cenvat credit availed - the refund clam by the appellant is on 30.08.2013 is within the time for the quarter July to September 2012. CENVAT credit - Held that - there is no provision in Cenvat Credit Rules which indicate that cenvat credit has to be availed during the period when the assessee receive the services nor there is any limitation for availing cenvat credit during the relevant period in question - similar issue decided in the case of K Line Ship Management (India) Pvt. Ltd 2017 (7) TMI 412 - CESTAT MUMBAI , wherein it has been held that unless the assessee is issued a show cause notice for denial of cenvat credit availed under CCR, 2004, refund sanctioned cannot be credited to Cenvat credit during the relevant period in question. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim rejection based on limitation under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Rejection of cenvat credit availed during the period.

Analysis:
1. The appeal addressed the rejection of a refund claim filed by the appellant for unutilised cenvat credit for the quarter July to September 2012. The lower authorities had rejected the refund claim for July and August 2012 citing limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant, a manufacturer and 100% EOU, filed the refund claim on 30.08.2013 for exports made during the specified period. The Tribunal referenced the judgments of CCE, Pune-III Vs. AAM Services India Pvt. Ltd and Silver Dot Converters Pvt. Ltd, emphasizing that the period of limitation for the quarter starts from the end of the quarter. The Tribunal held that the refund claim filed by the appellant within the time frame was valid for the quarter in question, thereby rejecting the lower authorities' decision based on limitation.

2. The second issue pertained to the rejection of cenvat credit availed during the specified period. The Tribunal clarified that there is no provision in the Cenvat Credit Rules indicating a specific period for availing cenvat credit. Citing the case of K Line Ship Management (India) Pvt. Ltd, the Tribunal highlighted that unless an assessee is issued a show cause notice for denial of cenvat credit under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the refund sanctioned cannot be credited to cenvat credit during the relevant period. Therefore, the rejection of cenvat credit availed during the period in question was deemed unjustified by the Tribunal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found the impugned order unsustainable and set it aside. The appeal was allowed with consequential reliefs, if any, in favor of the appellant.