2018 (6) TMI 910 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of unutilized CENVAT credit - benefit o notification availed - rejection on the ground that the refund is admissible only in case where the credit could not have been utilized due to export of goods - Held that - The refund claim was filed as the goods become exempted by virtue of N/N. 30/2007 CE dt. 09.07.2004. The Appellant thus became entitled for the refund of said credit lying unutilized - The issue on merits already stands decided by us in case of Suryalaxmi Cotton Mills 2016 (12) TMI 78 - CESTAT MUMBAI , where it was held that at the time of exemption N/N. 30/2004-CE came into effect, there was no provision for reversal of credit in respect of inputs contained in the said exempted goods or lying as such for the reason that credit was availed prior to issuance of the exemption notification and at the time of availment of credit there was no bar and the CENVAT credit availed was correct and legal - the Appellants are entitled for the refund of the cenvat credit lying in their books. Time limitation - Held that - no findings has been given by the Appellate Authority on the issue of time bar - it is appropriate to remand back both the appeals to the Commissioner (Appeals) to look into the aspect of time bar and decide the appeals accordingly. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
Refund claim under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for unutilized cenvat credit, rejection of claim based on Rule 11 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and time limitation under Section 11B.

Analysis:
The appeals arose from a common order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) concerning M/s Rainbow Weavers and Processors Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Raymond Ltd., Jalgaon. The issue revolved around the Appellants' unutilized cenvat credit and their refund claim under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The claim was rejected on the grounds that the credit could have been utilized due to export of goods, and the time limit for filing the claim was exceeded. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection, leading to the present appeals.

The Appellant's counsel argued that Rule 11 of CCR, 2004 did not apply as it came into effect after the credit was availed. They cited relevant Tribunal orders and High Court judgments to support their position. They contended that the time limitation for filing a refund claim did not apply in this case. On the other hand, the Additional Commissioner for the revenue supported the rejection of the claim, citing Rule 11 of CCR, 2004 and the requirement for refund admissibility in cases of exported goods.

Upon hearing both sides, it was established that the Appellants were entitled to the refund of the cenvat credit due to the exemption of their goods. The Tribunal referred to previous judgments to support this decision. It was clarified that the provision for reversal of cenvat credit in such cases was inserted later and could not be applied retrospectively. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order and remanded the appeals to the Commissioner (Appeals) to consider the aspect of time limitation and make a decision accordingly.

In conclusion, the appeals were disposed of by way of remand to the Commissioner (Appeals) for further consideration, emphasizing the entitlement of the Appellants to the refund of cenvat credit and the need to address the issue of time limitation as per relevant legal provisions.