9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 545 - AT - Central ExciseRefund claim - export of goods - Time Limitation - Section 11B of the Central Excise Act - Held that - these cases relates to export of goods and not the export of services and in the case of export of goods, the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s. GTN Engineering (I) Ltd. 2010 (8) TMI 314 - CESTAT, CHENNAI has considered the issue of limitation as prescribed u/s 11B for claiming the refund under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004. The Hon ble High Court held that time period of one year should be reckoned from the date of export of goods. Cases are remanded back to the original authority to pass de novo order regarding the refund claim - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues Involved:
Appeal against orders remanding refund claims for reconsideration by original authority. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Refund Claims Reconsideration The Department filed six appeals against orders by the Commissioner (A) remanding refund claims for reconsideration by the original authority. The appeals involved refund claims ranging from Rs. 9,28,432 to Rs. 24,97,218 for different periods. The respondent, an Export Oriented Unit (EOU), filed a refund claim for accumulated CENVAT credit on input services. The original authority rejected the claim as time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The Commissioner (A) allowed the appeal, stating that the time bar limitation does not apply to accumulated CENVAT credit claims. The Department appealed against this decision. Issue 2: Legal Arguments The Revenue argued that the Commissioner (A)'s orders were not sustainable, citing case laws that overturned decisions relied upon by the appellate authority. They contended that the relevant date for claiming refunds under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 should be the date of export of goods. The assessee's counsel defended the order, asserting that the time limit under Section 11B did not apply. They referenced a Tribunal decision and a circular supporting their position. Issue 3: Judicial Analysis The Tribunal analyzed the relevant case laws and held that the limitation period for claiming refunds under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 should be reckoned from the date of export of goods. They referred to the decisions of the Hon'ble Madras High Court and other Tribunal cases that supported this interpretation. Despite the respondents' reliance on a different Tribunal judgment, the Tribunal upheld the consistent application of the Madras High Court's decision in similar cases. Conclusion The Tribunal found the impugned orders unsustainable in law and remanded all cases to the original authority for fresh consideration based on the determination that Section 11B is applicable for claiming refunds under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004. The relevant date for the computation of the one-year period was established as the date of export of goods. Consequently, all appeals were allowed by way of remand for further proceedings. Note: The judgment was delivered by Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member, at the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore on 13.04.2018.
|
