2024 (4) TMI 169 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim lying in cenvat credit on CVD and BCD paid by the appellant - rejection on the ground of non compliance by the appellant to the export obligation in terms of EPCG License of advance authorization for import of the capital goods by the appellants - time limitation - rejection also on the ground that refund claim filed after the expiry of period mentioned in the Section 11B of the existing law (CEA 1944). Non compliance by the appellant to the export obligation in terms of EPCG License of advance authorization for import of the capital goods by the appellants - HELD THAT - The appellant had not deposited the duty during the existence of the Central Excise Act 1944. Resultantly the question of appellant becoming entitled to cenvat credit under the existing law does not at all arise. Section 140 and 142 of CGST Act no doubt all the transitional provisions permits for tax or duty or refund of amount credit lying in stock on the appointed day (01.07.2012) however subject to following two conditions - (i) the assessee should have become eligible for the said credit under existing law; (ii) the said credit should have been transferred to electronic ledger - Since the duty in the present case has been paid after the said appointed day the question of impugned credit being available to the appellant under the existing law is absolutely redundant, giving only one inference that on the appointed day the appellant was not eligible for the cenvat credit as has been prayed to be refunded under the garb of the transitional provisions. The amount in question since has been paid after introduction of CGST Act 2017 but for the Bill of Entry of the year 2010 (dated 10.09.2010) on account of failure of compliance with the export obligation under advance authorization license the cenvat credit of such duty which is paid under the present CGST Law cannot be made available to the assessee in the light of the transitional provisions of new CGST Act. More for the reason the appellant was notregistered under Excise Department.The appellant is not eligible even under Section 172 of the GST Act. Time Limitation - refund claim being filed after the expiry of period mentioned in the Section 11B of the existing law (CEA 1944) - HELD THAT - Apparently and admittedly the claim has been filed under Section 11B of the existing law the period prescribed therein is one year from the relevant date.Present is the case of claiming refund of credit on CVD and BCD paid. The imports in question was of the year 2010 CVD/BCD were paid after 10 years in the year 2019. Therefore the refund claim has been filed after 2 years for payment of duty in the year 2021. The refund claim is apparently barred by time - seeing the impugned refund was absolutely online the benefit of said decision cannot be extended in favour of the appellant. The refund claim is held to have rightly been rejected. The impugned order is sustained - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves the rejection of a refund claim by the appellant u/s EPCG Authorization and the issue of limitation for filing the refund claim.

Issue 1 - Refund claim under EPCG Authorization:
The appellant, a manufacturer-exporter, imported capital goods under an EPCG Authorization but failed to fulfill the export obligation within the stipulated period, leading to the payment of Basic Customs Duty (BCD) and countervailing duty (CVD). The refund claim was rejected based on non-compliance with export obligations and the eligibility for cenvat credit under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant's argument regarding the CGST Act and transitional provisions was considered but deemed irrelevant as the duty was paid after the appointed day, making the appellant ineligible for cenvat credit. The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claim, emphasizing the appellant's failure to comply with the EPCG scheme's export focus.

Issue 2 - Limitation for filing refund claim:
The refund claim was also rejected on the grounds of limitation, as it was filed after the prescribed period under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The claim for refund of CVD and BCD paid in 2019 for imports made in 2010 was considered time-barred. Despite the appellant citing a Supreme Court decision regarding the exclusion of certain periods for limitation, the Tribunal found the claim to be rightfully rejected due to being filed after the statutory time limit. Therefore, the rejection of the refund claim was upheld based on the limitation aspect as well.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the rejection of the refund claim under the EPCG Authorization and on the grounds of limitation for filing the claim.