9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (12) TMI 900 - AT - Central Excise100% EOU - refund of unutilized cenvat credit on input and input services - rejection of refund claim on the ground that it was filed beyond the time limit from the date of issue of Order-in-Appeal in accordance with Explanation B(ec) to Section 11B - HELD THAT - Rule 5 for refund of cenvat credit under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.6.2012 clearly states that refund claim should be accompanied with the copies of the shipping bills which is the basis for claiming any refund under the said Rule. The Original Authority on verification, sanctioned refund claim only to the extent of claim being complete and rejected balance as it was not accompanied with the relevant shipping bills. The basis for filing a refund claim under Rule 5 is the shipping bill, whereas the appellant filed the complete refund claim along with the shipping bills only on 14.10.2019 i.e., after two years from the date of order of the Commissioner (A) is clearly time barred and hence, the claims rejected on time bar by the authorities is justified. Also, the present appeal is under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and hence the question of refund under Section 142 does not arise. Moreover, as per Section 142, any claim for refund of CENVAT credit is fully or partially rejected, the amount so rejected shall lapse as seen from clause (3) of Section 142. The appeal is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for refund of unutilized CENVAT credit. 2. Time limit for submission of shipping bills. 3. Restoration of unutilized credit upon rejection of refund. Summary: Issue 1: Eligibility for refund of unutilized CENVAT credit The appellant, a 100% EOU manufacturing and exporting 'Crystal and Oscillators', filed a refund claim of unutilized CENVAT credit on inputs and input services. The original authority granted a partial refund but rejected the balance due to the absence of shipping bills. The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the case for verification of shipping bills. Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, and Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.6.2012 were cited, which state that refund claims must be accompanied by shipping bills. Issue 2: Time limit for submission of shipping bills The appellant submitted shipping bills on 15.07.2019, after the Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the case on 27.10.2017. The original authority rejected the refund claim as it was filed beyond the time limit specified in Section 11B(ec) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal upheld the rejection, stating that the refund claim filed after two years from the date of the Commissioner (Appeals) order was time-barred. Issue 3: Restoration of unutilized credit upon rejection of refund The appellant alternatively requested that the unutilized credit be restored under Section 142 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The Tribunal distinguished this case from the appellant's previous case, noting that the current appeal was under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal ruled that under Section 142, any rejected claim for refund of CENVAT credit would lapse. Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claim on the grounds of being time-barred and clarified that the unutilized credit could not be restored under Section 142 of the CGST Act, 2017. The order was pronounced in Open Court on 19.12.2023.
|
