9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 915X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to export of the goods. They filed the refund claim under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules on 9.4.2008. The claim was for an amount of Rs.7,40,720/- being credit taken by them relating to the period April 2005 to March 2007. A show-cause notice dated 9.6.2008 was issued proposing to reject the refund claim as time barred as the refund related to period from 1.4.2005 to 31.3.2007 and the claim having been received on 9.4.2008. The party contested the proposal and submitted that the claim under Rule 5 is not governed by time limit under Section 11 B of the Central Excise Act. The original authority rejected the claim. The Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the order of the original authority. 3. Learned advocate for the appellant relying on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s exported during that quarter. The fact remains that while admitting that the appellants have exported goods during the six quarters, the entire claims for refund of CENVAT credit have been denied on the ground that the documents have not been produced. This is obviously erroneous. 5.2 In addition, in respect of three quarters, claims have been rejected by the original authority on the ground of time-bar also. The Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the order of the original authority also held that all the six claims are time-barred. Regarding the submission of learned SDR that Section 11B is applicable to refund of CENVAT credit under Rule 5, it is to be noticed that the credit accumulated in CENVAT credit account is not duty paid by the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowed only after the export has taken place as rightly contended by the learned SDR. In other words, the refund claimed in any quarter should relate to CENVAT credit on inputs contained in goods exported during that quarter or earlier quarters and not in respect of goods to be exported." 5.2 In view of the above, the ground on which the refund claim has been rejected is not sustainable. Further, it is noticed that the correctness of the amount and whether the entire amount relates to credit accumulated due to export has not been gone into by the lower authorities. Therefore after holding that the time limit under Section 11 B is not applicable, the matter is remanded to the original authority for considering the refund claim afresh. 6. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
