9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (9) TMI 788 - AT - Central ExciseRejection of Refund claim - time limitation - section 11 B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT - The appellants had two units, one in DTA unit and other is 100% EOU, refund claim have been filed by both the units. DTA have cleared the goods against CT-3 to their 100% EOU and have claimed refund. The 100% EOU has claimed refund for goods exported. Earlier in the proceedings the matters was remanded by tribunal - The appellants are of the view that both Appeal are within the limitation of one year. It is seen that the Appeal No. E/13076/2018 pertains to period October 12 to Dec. 12 and the refund claim was filed on 04.10.2013 - In appeal no. E/13077/2018 pertains to the period April 13 to June 13 and refund claim was filed on 09.04.14. In these circumstances it is seen that in both these cases the refund has been filed more or less within one year of limitation, the exact period of limitation would depend on the dates when the exports were made. The appellants would be entitled to refund in respect of exports made from 4.10.12 onwards in case of Appeal No. E/13076/2018 and from 9.4.2013 onwards in case of Appeal No. E/13077/2018. The matter regarding these two appeals is remanded for determination and sanction of exact amount of refund admissible in above terms - As regards other six appeals the only issue is if the appellants are entitled to re-credit of Cenvat Credit reversed at the time of filing of these refund claims which were later rejected by revenue. It is obvious that the reversal of Cenvat Credit was for the purpose of claiming refund and in these circumstances that the appellants are not granted refund, the credit reversed becomes admissible for re-credit. Appeal allowed in part.
Issues:
1. Refusal of refund claims by original Adjudicating Authority. 2. Denial of refund claims on the ground of being barred by limitation under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. Rejection of refund claims within the period of limitation. 4. Inbuilt mechanism of re-credit under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 5. Reversal of Cenvat Credit before the adjudication of refund claims. 6. Rejection of part of the refund on the ground of goods supplied to 100% EOU. 7. Applicability of limitation prescribed under Section 11B to refund claims filed under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. 8. Admissibility of refund in case of clearance from DTA to 100% EOU. 9. Entitlement to re-credit of Cenvat Credit reversed at the time of filing refund claims. Detailed Analysis: 1. The appeals were filed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) remanding the matter back to the original Adjudicating Authority, which had rejected the refund claims. The tribunal upheld the limitation but remanded the matter to examine claims within the limitation period. 2. The appellant argued that the lower authorities did not properly examine the issue and rejected claims within the limitation period. They pointed out the inbuilt mechanism of re-credit under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and referred to relevant case laws supporting their argument. 3. The appellant further argued that the reversal of Cenvat Credit was done before the adjudication of refund claims, and belated reversal of credit was considered compliant for refund purposes in previous tribunal decisions. 4. Part of the refund was rejected on the grounds of goods supplied to 100% EOU, citing a relevant case law that deemed export credit cannot be denied under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. 5. The tribunal considered the limitation issue settled against the appellant based on a judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court and analyzed the claims filed within and beyond the limitation period, remanding specific appeals for further determination. 6. The tribunal observed that the appellants were entitled to refund for exports made within the limitation period, based on previous tribunal decisions and the amended definition of export goods. 7. Regarding other appeals, the tribunal discussed the entitlement to re-credit of Cenvat Credit reversed at the time of filing refund claims, which were later rejected by the revenue, concluding that the credit reversed becomes admissible for re-credit in such circumstances. 8. The appeals were partly allowed based on the findings and arguments presented, with a decision pronounced in the open court on a specified date.
|
