9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (4) TMI 796 - AT - Central ExciseRefund claim - rejection on account of time limitation - clearance of goods to SEZ unit - case of appellant is that the limitation prescribed in Section 11B of CEA, 1944 is not applicable to the refund claim filed under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 read with N/N. 5/2006 or 27/2012 - Held that - the judgment in the case of GTN Engineering India (P) Ltd. 2011 (8) TMI 960 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , squarely covers the issue, where it was held that the relevant date must be the date on which the final products are cleared for export - refund claim which is filed beyond the relevant date as prescribed u/s 11B is barred by limitation - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the refund claims for accumulated unutilized CENVAT Credit were filed within the prescribed time limit. 2. Determination of the relevant date for computing the period of limitation for filing refund claims. 3. Applicability of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to refund claims under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 4. Consideration of conflicting judgments from different High Courts regarding the limitation period for refund claims. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the refund claims for accumulated unutilized CENVAT Credit were filed within the prescribed time limit: The appellants filed refund claims for different quarters seeking refund of accumulated unutilized CENVAT Credit on various inputs used for the manufacture of exported goods. The refund claims were filed under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR), 2004 read with Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012. A show-cause notice was issued proposing to reject the refund claims on the ground that they were time-barred, having been filed beyond the period of one year. The refund sanctioning authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection of the refund claims as being filed beyond the stipulated period. 2. Determination of the relevant date for computing the period of limitation for filing refund claims: The appellant argued that the relevant date for computing the period of limitation should be the date on which the manufacturer realizes that the accumulated credit cannot be utilized, rather than the date of export of goods. The appellant relied on the judgment in the case of Hindustan Motors Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-II [1996 (87) ELT 216 (T)] to support this argument. However, the tribunal found this argument to be flimsy, stating that the law prescribes a period of limitation to give finality to disputes, and the relevant date for computing the period of one year is clearly defined in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. Applicability of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to refund claims under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004: The tribunal noted that Section 11B prescribes a time limit of one year from the relevant date for filing refund claims. The relevant date is defined in clause B of the explanation in Section 11B. For goods exported out of India, the relevant date is the date on which the ship or aircraft leaves India, the date on which goods pass the frontier if exported by land, or the date of dispatch by the Post Office if exported by post. The tribunal held that the relevant date for computing the period of limitation for refund claims under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 read with Notification No. 5/2006 or 27/2012 should be the date on which the goods are cleared to the SEZ. 4. Consideration of conflicting judgments from different High Courts regarding the limitation period for refund claims: The appellant argued that the authorities below erred by relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of CCE, Coimbatore vs. GTN Engineering (I) Ltd. [2012 (281) ELT 185 (Mad)], which held that the limitation under Section 11B applies to refund of accumulated CENVAT Credit. The appellant contended that the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of mPORTAL India Wireless Solutions Pvt Ltd. vs. CST, Bangalore [2012 (27) STR 134 (Kar)], which held that the limitation under Section 11B does not apply to refund of accumulated CENVAT Credit, should be followed as it was rendered later. However, the tribunal held that the judgment in mPORTAL India Wireless Solutions Pvt Ltd. is not applicable to the present case as it deals with the refund claim in respect of export of services, not goods. The tribunal upheld the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in GTN Engineering (I) Ltd., which squarely covers the issue and held that the refund claims filed beyond the relevant date as prescribed under Section 11B are barred by limitation. Conclusion: The tribunal dismissed the appeals, sustaining the impugned orders and holding that the refund claims were rightly rejected on the ground of limitation. The relevant date for computing the period of limitation for filing refund claims under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 read with Notification No. 5/2006 or 27/2012 is the date of export of goods, and the limitation period prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is applicable to such refund claims.
|
