2018 (3) TMI 93 - AT - Central Excise

100% EOU - Refund claim - rejection on the ground of time limitation and also on the ground that the appellant has not fulfilled the conditions laid down under para 3(a) of N/N. 05/2006 - Held that - in the absence of submission of Shipping Bills/Bill of Export it is not possible to grant the refund as the relevant date for one year of period of limitation has to be computed from the date of Shipping Bill/Bill of Export which has not been done in this case - the case is required to be remanded to the original authority with a direction to the appellant to produce the relevant documents proving the exports for the purpose of claiming the refund - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules on grounds of time-barred and lack of documents.

Detailed Analysis:
The appeal was against the order rejecting the refund claim of the appellant, a 100% EOU, for unutilized cenvat credit on input services. The claim covered the period from January 2011 to March 2011. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the claim citing Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, mentioning it as partially time-barred and lacking necessary documents. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the appeal.

The appellant argued that the impugned order was unsustainable as it did not consider the facts properly. They highlighted being a 100% EOU, availing cenvat credit for the mentioned period, and filing the refund claim within the one-year limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The rejection on limitation grounds was deemed untenable by the appellant.

The respondent defended the order, stating that the rejection was not solely based on limitation but also due to non-fulfillment of conditions from Notification No. 05/2006 and lack of supporting documents for the refund claim.

Upon hearing both parties and examining the records, it was noted that the appellant failed to rebut the original authority's findings regarding the non-submission of Shipping Bill/Bill of Export. The Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that the conditions of the Notification were not met, justifying the rejection. The absence of Shipping Bills/Bill of Export hindered the computation of the relevant date for the limitation period. Consequently, the case was remanded to the original authority for the appellant to provide the necessary export documents to support the refund claim. The original authority was directed to issue a fresh order considering the newly submitted documents, ensuring compliance with natural justice principles. As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed for remand.

This detailed analysis encapsulates the key arguments, findings, and the ultimate decision of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT BANGALORE regarding the rejection of the appellant's refund claim under the Cenvat Credit Rules.