2017 (5) TMI 669 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - CENVAT credit in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of final products which are cleared for export to SEZ units - rejection on the ground of time limitation - N/N. 5/2006 - Held that - In case of export of goods, the relevant date is the date of export and in the case of SEZ units, it is taken as the date on which the goods are received in SEZ - the relevant date is the date on which goods were received in SEZ i.e. 20/06/2008. Therefore, refund claim dated 25/06/2009 is barred by limitation - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the refund claim is barred by limitation.
2. Whether clearances made to SEZ are to be considered as exports.

Issue 1:
The first issue revolves around the refund claim filed by the appellants for CENVAT credit on inputs used in the manufacture of final products cleared for export to SEZ units. The Refund Sanctioning Authority rejected the claim as time-barred, leading to an appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) and subsequently to the CESTAT Hyderabad. The key contention was the relevant date for computing the period of one year under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant argued that the last day of the relevant quarter should be considered as the starting point for limitation, while the revenue authority maintained that the date of export to SEZ should be the relevant date. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of the Notification No.5/2006 and Section 11B, along with relevant case laws, to determine the relevant date. Ultimately, the Tribunal held that the refund claim filed on 25/06/2009 was indeed barred by limitation as the relevant date was the date on which goods were received in SEZ, i.e., 20/06/2008. Therefore, the appeal on this issue was dismissed.

Issue 2:
The second issue concerns whether clearances made to SEZ should be considered as exports. The Department filed an appeal against the Commissioner's order, arguing that such clearances should not be treated as exports. The Tribunal referred to precedents like Reliance Ports & Terminals Ltd. vs. CCE & ST, Rajkot and Sujana Metal products Ltd. Vs. CCE, Hyderabad to determine the status of clearances to SEZ. Following the established legal principles, the Tribunal upheld the view that clearances to SEZ are indeed to be considered as exports. Consequently, the Department's appeal was dismissed for lacking merits. The Tribunal pronounced the orders in open court, concluding the legal proceedings.

In conclusion, the judgment by the CESTAT Hyderabad addressed two critical issues related to the refund claim's limitation and the classification of clearances to SEZ as exports. Through a detailed analysis of relevant legal provisions and precedents, the Tribunal provided a comprehensive decision on each issue, ultimately dismissing the appeals based on the established legal principles and factual circumstances presented before the court.