2019 (4) TMI 1076 - AT - Central Excise

Cash refund claim of accumulated CENVAT Credit - Time limitation - Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 - period January to Sept, 2008 - appeal filed by the appellant on 3.9.2010 - HELD THAT - The issue has been considered at length by the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of COMMISSISONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VERSUS GTN ENGINEERING 2011 (8) TMI 960 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , where it was held that though there is no specific relevant date is prescribed in the notification, the relevant date must be the date on which the final products are cleared for export. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Whether the cash refund claim of accumulated CENVAT Credit under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for the period January to Sept, 2008 filed by the appellant on 3.9.2010 is barred by limitation or not.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Cash refund claim under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004
The case involved an appeal against the rejection of a cash refund claim of accumulated CENVAT Credit by the appellant, a manufacturer of 100% Cotton Yarn. The appellant filed the claim on 3rd September 2010 for the period January 2008 to September 2008 under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The claim was rejected by the Commissioner of Central Excise on the grounds of being time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant contended that the limitation period was not applicable to their case due to the absence of a relevant date in the notification. The appellant cited the judgment in the case of Tata Motors Ltd. which was upheld by the Supreme Court. The Revenue argued that the limitation period specified under Section 11B was applicable to the refund claim. The issue was whether the claim filed after the prescribed period was barred by limitation.

Analysis:
The Tribunal considered the submissions of both parties. The appellant argued that the absence of a specific relevant date in the notification meant that the limitation period under Section 11B did not apply to their case. They relied on the judgment in Tata Motors Ltd. case. However, the Revenue contended that the period for filing refund claims was specified under Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, as per Notification No. 5/2006-CE. They referred to judgments by the Madras High Court in GTN Engineering (I) Ltd. and Hyundai Motors cases, which held that the limitation period under Section 11B applied to refund claims under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal noted the detailed analysis by the Madras High Court in the GTN Engineering case, emphasizing the importance of the date of export of goods as the relevant date for claiming CENVAT credit refunds. The Tribunal agreed with the Madras High Court's reasoning and upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appeal for lack of merit.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the cash refund claim of accumulated CENVAT Credit by the appellant, ruling that the claim filed after the prescribed period under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was barred by limitation. The Tribunal followed the precedent set by the Madras High Court in the GTN Engineering case regarding the relevant date for claiming CENVAT credit refunds, ultimately dismissing the appeal.