2020 (3) TMI 654 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - time limitation provided under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT - The issue arising out of the present dispute is no more res integra in view of M/S TECHNOCRAFT INDUSTRIES (I) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, THANE-I 2019 (4) TMI 1076 - CESTAT MUMBAI - The Tribunal has held that the limitation period provided under Section 11B ibid is applicable for refund claim of accumulated Cenvat credit in terms of Rule 5 ibid. There are no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in denying the refund benefit to the appellant on the ground of limitation - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Refund benefit denial under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 based on limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The judgment dealt with the denial of a refund benefit claimed under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, by the appellant due to the application of the limitation period provided under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal referred to a previous order in the case of Technocraft Industries (I) Ltd. where it was held that the limitation period under Section 11B applies to refund claims of accumulated Cenvat credit under Rule 5. The Tribunal emphasized that the relevant date for claiming a refund of Cenvat credit should be the date on which the final products are cleared for export. The judgment highlighted that the relevant date must align with the provisions of Rule 5 to avoid disentitling any person from making a refund claim. Additionally, the judgment discussed precedents from the Madras High Court and the Gujarat High Court regarding the interpretation of relevant dates and time limits for refund claims under similar rules. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to deny the refund benefit to the appellant based on the limitation period under Section 11B, following the precedent set by the Madras High Court. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed based on the established legal principles and interpretations provided in the judgment.