9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (10) TMI 1106 - AT - Central ExciseRefund of CENVAT Credit - rejection on the ground of time limitation - manufacture and export of fire vehicle took place in June to August, 2015 and refund claim was filed on 22nd September, 2017 - HELD THAT - Clause 3(b) of Notification 27/2012 prescribes that section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1994 will be applicable to all claims made under Rule 5. In the instant case, the appellant is a manufacturer and, therefore, there is no ambiguity. The refund claim relates to the period June to August, 2015 and the same was filed on 22nd September, 2017 which clearly beyond the scope of limitation prescribed under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Appeal dismissed.
Issues:
1. Rejection of refund claim under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 based on limitation. Analysis: The appeal was filed against the rejection of a refund claim under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 by M/s Vijay Fire Vehicles & Pumps Ltd. The appellant argued that the refund claim rejection was based on limitation, highlighting that the manufacture and export of fire vehicles occurred between June to August 2015, while the refund claim was filed on 22nd September 2017. The appellant pointed out an ambiguity in notification 27/2012-CE (N.T.), leading to the issuance of notification 14/2016-C.E.(N.T.) to amend clause 3(b) of the former notification. The appellant contended that the limitation should only apply post the issuance of notification 14/2016-C.E. (N.T.) dated 01.03.2016 due to the ambiguity in the initial notification. The Authorized Representative, on the other hand, emphasized that notification 18/2012 dated 18/06/2012, which substitutes Rule 5 in the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, mandates that refunds must be claimed within one year from the commencement of the CENVAT Credit (Third Amendment) Rules, 2012. He argued that there was no ambiguity in notification 27/2012-C.E. (N.T.) dated 18/06/2012 concerning its application to manufacturers. The clause 3(b) of notification 27/2012 was substituted by a new paragraph 3(b) in notification 14/2016-C.E. (N.T.) dated 01/03/2016, providing relaxation for service providers but maintaining the same limitation for manufacturers. Upon considering the submissions, the Tribunal found merit in the argument presented by the Authorized Representative. It was noted that the limitation prescribed under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as per notification 27/2012, applied to all claims made under Rule 5. The subsequent notification 14/2016-CE (N.T.) did not alter the limitation for manufacturers, only providing relaxation for service providers. As the appellant was a manufacturer and the refund claim was beyond the limitation period specified under the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claim. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
|
