Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 1378 - AT - Central ExciseRefund claim - Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 - time limitation - refund rejected on the ground of limitation as the refund claims were filed beyond period of one year from the relevant date as defined under Section 11B - Held that - In respect of the refund claims filed claiming refund of accumulated CENVAT Credit under Rule 5, the period of limitation as prescribed by the Section 11B will be applicable. The relevant date in respect of such claims of refund under Rule 5 has not been defined by the said Section. Explanation A, to the said Section defines the refund to include the claim for rebate of duty paid on goods exported or in respect of the goods used in manufacture of the exported goods. Explanation B, while defining relevant date denes the relevant date for claiming the rebate of duty on the goods exported out of India or in respect of excisable materials used in manufacture of such goods. The said relevant date does not define the relevant date for the purpose of the refund under Rule 5 of CCR. In case of mPortal India Wireless Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore 2011 (9) TMI 450 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT , relied upon by the appellants the High Court was not even seized with issue application of limitation under section 11B to the cases of refund of accumulated CENVAT Credit under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Yes, period of limitation as provided under Section 11B will be applicable to refund claims filed in terms of Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. - Relevant date for purpose of limitation in respect of refund claims filed under Rule 5, will be the last date of quarter in which the goods were actually exported. The appeal filed by the appellants is allowed and matter remanded back to the adjudicating authority for consideration the refund quarter-wise and determine whether it is hit by limitation or not.
Issues Involved:
1. Date of filing the refund claims when initially returned due to defects. 2. Applicability of the limitation period under Section 11B for refund claims under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 3. Determination of the "relevant date" for filing refund claims under Rule 5. 4. Whether the refund claim can be considered filed under protest due to disputed CENVAT Credit eligibility. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Date of Filing the Refund Claims: The Tribunal held that if a refund claim is initially returned due to deficiencies and then resubmitted, the date of filing should be considered as the original submission date. This conclusion is supported by the Delhi High Court's decision in Arya Exports, which emphasized that procedural irregularities should not deprive the claimant of their right to a refund. 2. Applicability of Limitation Period Under Section 11B: The Tribunal affirmed that the limitation period prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, applies to refund claims filed under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. This conclusion is grounded in the Supreme Court's decision in Mafatlal Industries, which mandates that all refund claims under the Central Excise Act must adhere to the provisions of Section 11B. 3. Determination of the "Relevant Date": The Tribunal clarified that the "relevant date" for the purpose of filing refund claims under Rule 5 should be the last date of the quarter in which the goods were exported. This interpretation aligns with the conditions specified in Notification No. 5/2006-CE(NT), which allows only one refund claim per quarter. The Tribunal noted that while the Madras High Court in GTN Engineering suggested the date of export as the relevant date, this must be read in conjunction with the quarterly filing requirement. 4. Refund Claim Filed Under Protest: The Tribunal rejected the argument that the refund claim should be considered filed under protest due to disputed CENVAT Credit eligibility. It emphasized that the concept of "under protest" applies specifically to the payment of duty, not to the eligibility of credit. The Tribunal found no merit in the appellants' claim that their refund application should be deemed under protest due to ongoing disputes over credit eligibility. Additional Observations: - The Tribunal noted that the Karnataka High Court's decision in mPortal India Wireless Solutions, which suggested that the limitation under Section 11B does not apply to refunds of accumulated CENVAT Credit, was not binding as it was obiter dicta and not the ratio decidendi. - The Tribunal distinguished the case of Span Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd., noting that it dealt with the export of services and not goods, making it inapplicable to the present case. - The Tribunal also cited the Supreme Court's decision in Dilip Kumar & Company, which mandates that any ambiguity in exemption notifications should be resolved in favor of the Revenue. Conclusion: The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration of the refund claims on a quarter-wise basis, as per Notification No. 5/2006-CE(NT), to determine whether they are barred by limitation. The Tribunal's order emphasized the need for a detailed examination of the claims in light of the applicable legal provisions and judicial precedents.
|