9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 1361 - AT - Central ExciseRefund of CENVAT Credit - time limitation for filing appeal - Section 11B of Central Excise Act, read with Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that - The Commissioner (Appeals) has decided the issue relying on the decision in case of Deepak Spiner Ltd Vs. CCE, 2013 (11) TMI 1221 - CESTAT NEW DELHI which is again based on the hon ble High court of MPs order in case of STI India Vs CCE 2008 (10) TMI 246 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE , where it was held that the time limit as prescribed under Section 11 B is not applicable in the case of refund of unutilised Cenvat credit under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The time limit as prescribed in section 11B of Central Excise Act shall not be applicable in the case at hand - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
Refund application under Section 11B of Central Excise Act and Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules. Analysis: The appeal involved a dispute over a refund application filed by the appellant under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act and Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, seeking refund of accumulated CENVAT credit for export without payment of duty. The Revenue contended that the refund application was time-barred as per Section 11B, based on the date of export exceeding the time limit for the refund claim. The Commissioner of Central Excise had allowed the refund, setting aside the Order-in-Original. The key argument by the Department was that the time limit under Section 11B applies to refund claims, which the appellant disputed, citing precedents such as Deepak Spinner Ltd. and STI India cases where it was held that the time limit under Section 11B does not apply to refund claims under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules. The appellant's representative argued that the time limit under Section 11B does not apply to refund claims under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules. They emphasized that the refund under Rule 5 is based on the clearance for export, not the physical export of goods. Additionally, they contended that availing drawback of customs duty does not bar the refund claim under Rule 5, as it aims to prevent double benefit only in specific circumstances. The appellant relied on various decisions supporting their argument, including cases like Sabharwals Medicals Pvt. Ltd. and Meghdoot Pistons Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had correctly relied on the decision in the Deepak Spinner Ltd. case, which established that the time limit under Section 11B does not apply to refund claims under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules. The Tribunal also agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the non-adjustment of the duty demand that had not attained finality, citing relevant cases like Steela Rubber Works and KEC International Ltd. Furthermore, the Tribunal clarified that availing drawback of customs duty does not necessarily bar the refund claim under Rule 5, as long as it does not lead to double benefit. The Tribunal highlighted the CBEC Circular supporting this view and acknowledged the rectification of minor issues related to valuation and calculation of CENVAT Credit for the refund. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision as correct and legal. The stay petition was also rejected, affirming the impugned order regarding the refund application under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules.
|
