9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (11) TMI 1221 - AT - Central ExciseBar of limitation Relevant date - Whether the limitation period prescribed under Section 11B would be applicable for cash refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 Refund claim on accumulated cenvat credit under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 Held that - Following STI India Ltd. vs. CCE, Indore 2008 (10) TMI 246 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE - the strict law of limitation provided in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act would not apply to the claim of refund claimed pursuant to notification issued under Rule 57F - Para 6 of the Notification No. 11/2002-CE (NT) dated 1/3/02 issued under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, simply provides that the application for cash refund of accumulated Cenvat credit is required to be filed to the Assistant Commissioner/Jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner before the expiry of the period in the Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. It does not mention any relevant date Order set aside Decided in favour of Assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of limitation period under Section 11B for cash refund of accumulated Cenvat credit under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of Limitation Period under Section 11B: The case involved the dispute regarding the applicability of the limitation period prescribed under Section 11B for cash refund of accumulated Cenvat credit under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. The appellant, a manufacturer of yarn, filed an application for cash refund of accumulated Cenvat credit for the period from April 2002 to June 2002. The Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner sanctioned a partial refund and rejected the claim for exports made prior to 17/06/2002 as time-barred. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the current appeal. 2. Arguments by the Appellant: The appellant argued that the limitation period under Section 11B does not apply to the refund claimed under Rule 5, citing a judgment by the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court and Tribunal decisions. They emphasized that the notification is procedural and not mandatory, supporting their claim for the refund. 3. Arguments by the Respondent: The Respondent defended the impugned order, citing Tribunal judgments that stressed the strict construction of limitation provisions. They argued that the limitation period prescribed under Section 11B must be strictly observed, and the relevant date for counting the limitation period for cash refund under Rule 5 would be the date of export. 4. Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, and the notification specifying the procedure for cash refund. It noted that the notification required the application to be filed before the expiry of the period specified in Section 11B. However, the Tribunal observed that the notification did not mention any relevant date for counting the limitation period. It highlighted that the definition of 'relevant date' under Section 11B was specific to rebate claims on goods exported out of India, not applicable to cash refund claims under Rule 5. As the limitation provision in the notification was incomplete, the Tribunal held that the impugned order was not sustainable, setting it aside and allowing the appeal. In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision clarified the applicability of the limitation period under Section 11B for cash refund of accumulated Cenvat credit under Rule 5, emphasizing the importance of complete and specific provisions in statutory limitations.
|
