2018 (4) TMI 653 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of CENVAT credit - time limitation - export of goods - Rule 5 of the CCR 2004 read with N/N. 227/12 dated 18.6.2012 - Held that - the limitation would start from the end of the quarter, during which exports have taken place - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Limitation for refund claim of CENVAT Credit under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 227/12 dated 18.6.2012 in respect of export of goods.

Analysis:

1. Issue of Limitation for Refund Claim: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai involved a dispute regarding the limitation for a refund claim of CENVAT Credit. The Commissioner (Appeals) had rejected the Revenue's appeal, prompting the Revenue to file the present appeal. The issue centered around the interpretation of Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, in conjunction with Notification No. 227/12 dated 18.6.2012 concerning the timing of filing refund claims related to the export of goods.

2. Decision of the Commissioner (Appeals): The Commissioner (Appeals) acknowledged that the refund claim was filed within one year from the close of the relevant quarter, which was not disputed. The Commissioner also referenced a decision by the Hon'ble CESTAT Mumbai in a similar case, emphasizing that all refund claims must be filed within one year from the end of the quarter to comply with Rule 5 and Notification 5/2006. The Commissioner concluded that the refund claims in question were within the time limit specified under Section 11B, as they were filed within one year from the date immediately after the completion of a quarter.

3. Appellate Tribunal's Analysis: The Appellate Tribunal, after hearing the arguments of the learned AR, noted that the appellate authority had relied on the Tribunal's decision regarding the starting point of the limitation period for refund claims related to exports. Despite the Revenue reiterating their stance in the appeal without referencing the Tribunal's decision cited by the Commissioner (Appeals), the Appellate Tribunal found no fault in the appellate authority's decision. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was rejected based on the Tribunal's precedent and the interpretation of the relevant rules and notifications.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision based on the interpretation of Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and relevant notifications, emphasizing the importance of filing refund claims within the specified time limit from the end of the relevant quarter in cases of export of goods.