2017 (6) TMI 317 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of AED (T & TA) - time limitation - whether, the time limit prescribed in Section 11B ibid would be applicable for refund of accumulated cenvat credit under Rules 5 ibid? - Held that - refund application in Form A is to be filed with the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities before the expiry of period specified in Section 11B of the CEA, 1944 - Since the notification dated 14.03.2006 clearly prescribes that for claiming refund of CENVAT credit, the application has to be filed within the stipulated time prescribed under Section 11B, the refund claim in this case filed beyond such specified time limit is barred by limitation of time. Refund rightly denied - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Applicability of time limit under Section 11B for refund of accumulated Cenvat credit under Rule 5.

Analysis:
The appeal pertains to a case where the appellant, engaged in manufacturing and exporting Poly Cotton Yarn, sought a refund of Additional Excise Duty (AED) paid on raw materials. The appellant availed Cenvat credit on the inputs used in manufacturing, but as the final product did not attract AED, the appellant filed a refund application which was rejected by the authorities citing non-fulfillment of conditions and being time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The crux of the issue lies in whether the time limit prescribed in Section 11B applies to refund of accumulated Cenvat credit under Rule 5.

The appellant contended that Cenvat credit is distinct from excise duty, thus Section 11B should not apply for claiming refund of accumulated Cenvat credit as per Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant relied on judgments by various High Courts to support this argument. On the contrary, the respondent argued that Section 11B is applicable for computing the limitation period for refund of Cenvat credit, citing a judgment by the Madras High Court. The Tribunal heard both sides and examined the case records to determine the issue at hand.

The Tribunal analyzed Rule 5 which allows manufacturers to claim refund of Cenvat credit on input services used for exportation, subject to conditions specified by the Central Government. The notification dated 14.03.2006 mandates that refund applications must be filed within the time limit specified in Section 11B. Referring to the judgment of the Madras High Court in GTN Engineering (I) Ltd., the Tribunal held that the time limit under Section 11B is applicable for claiming refund of Cenvat credit. The Tribunal distinguished the case cited by the appellant, mPortal India, stating it was not directly relevant to the issue in the present case.

Further, the Tribunal addressed judgments from the Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh High Courts, cited by the appellant, which were distinguished by the Madras High Court in GTN Engineering (I) Ltd. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the impugned order rejecting the refund application on grounds of limitation, thereby dismissing the appeal. The judgment highlights the significance of complying with prescribed time limits for claiming refunds of accumulated Cenvat credit, as per the relevant rules and notifications.

Therefore, the Tribunal's decision reaffirms the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and notifications regarding the time limit for claiming refunds of accumulated Cenvat credit, emphasizing the need for strict compliance with the prescribed procedures and limitations to avoid dismissal of refund claims.