9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 335X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and therefore it is not applicable in the present case. I find that Rule 57F is pari materia to Rule 5 of the Cenvat Cedit rules, 2004. It is noted that both the cases, JCT Ltd. (supra) and STI India Ltd. (2008 (10) TMI 246 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE) are related to refund of unutilized credit on the exported goods. In the present case, I find that refund claim was filed on the unutilized credit on the export goods - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No.E/358/2007 - FINAL ORDER No.40209/2014 - Dated:- 5-3-2014 - Shri Pradip Kumar Das, J. For the Appellant : Shri Parmod Kumar, JC (AR) For the Respondent : Shri M. Karthikeyan, Advocate JUDGEMENT Per Pradip Kumar Das; Revenue filed this appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... larly mentioning that refund claim has to be filed before expiry of the period specified in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Subsequently, Notification No.11/2002 (supra) was amended by Notification No.49/2003-CE (NT) dt. 17.5.2003 and the claim for such refund may be made for each calendar month. He submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) erroneously proceeded on the basis of filing of quarterly return which is contrary to the amending notification. He further submits that Section 11B categorically prescribes the relevant dates in respect of the export of the goods. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Rajalakshmi Textile Processors P. Ltd. Vs CCE Salem - 2005 (188) ELT 123 (Tri.-Chennai). 4. On the oth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entral Excise Rules, 1944 against goods exported during quarter to which the scheme relates. The Commissioner (Appeals) also observed that refund claim was filed within a period of one year from the quarter ending March 2004. It is seen that the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of STI India Ltd. (supra) held as under :- 7. In our opinion, merely because the refund application was not filed strictly within 6 months before expiry of period specified in Clause 6 of Appendix read with Section 11B ibid but was filed late by 27 days could not have been made the sole ground for the rejection of application as barred by limitation. Infact, the claim in question did not fall strictly within the forecorners of Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned in Explanation B to Section 11B. But it does not cover the claims for cash refund of accumulated credit under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. While Explanation B(a) provides that relevant date in case of goods exported out of India, where a rebate of excise duty paid is available in respect of the goods themselves or as the case may be, the excisable materials used in the manufacture of such goods, shall be the date on which the ship/aircraft, in which the goods are loaded, leaves India in case of export by sea or by air or the date on which the goods cross the land frontier in case of export by land or the date of despatch of goods by post office concerned to a place outside India in case of export by post, this provision ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is, we hold that the claim for the period from April, 2002 to June, 2002 is not hit by limitation. 7. An attempt was made by the Ld. AR that decision of JCT Ltd. (supra) would not apply in this case as in that case, it was related to EPCG scheme and he submits that both the case laws related to Rule 57F of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules and therefore it is not applicable in the present case. I find that Rule 57F is pari materia to Rule 5 of the Cenvat Cedit rules, 2004. It is noted that both the cases, JCT Ltd. (supra) and STI India Ltd. (supra) are related to refund of unutilized credit on the exported goods. In the present case, I find that refund claim was filed on the unutilized credit on the export goods. Hence I do not find an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
