2025 (2) TMI 945 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of utilization Cenvat Credit on account of clearance to 100% EOU without any payment of duty - rejection of refund on the ground that the same were filed after expiry of one year i.e. time limit prescribed under Section 11B of Central Excise Act 1944 - HELD THAT - Reliance placed on the decision of M/s Kumaraswamy Mineral Exports vs CCE ST Belgaum 2019 (2) TMI 1378 - CESTAT BANGALORE in which the decision of Hon ble Madras High Court in GTN Engineering Industries 2011 (8) TMI 960 - MADRAS HIGH COURT was also considered and same was distinguished in view of specific relevant date having been given in the Notification itself which aspect the Hon ble Bench considered was not taken into consideration by Hon ble Madras High Court. In view of the stated position and the case of GTN Engineering having been distinguished the party becomes entitled to the refund on the basis of cited decisions of Tribunal. Same is therefore allowed as per law. Appeals are allowed.

Summary

The case involves two refund claims under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, for periods in 2014. The claims were rejected due to being filed after the one-year time limit under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant argued citing a decision in M/s USV Ltd. vs C.C.E. & S.T. Daman, supporting refund claims filed within one year of the quarter end. The respondent relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court, emphasizing the application of Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 in determining the one-year period under Section 11B. The appellant distinguished this decision with reference to a case in M/s Kumaraswamy Mineral Exports vs CCE & ST - Belgaum, where specific relevant dates in a notification were considered. The court, considering these arguments, allowed the refund claims based on the cited tribunal decisions, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant.