9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... similar set of facts. It was held that the notification prescribed a period of one year as provided under Section 11B for making the application for refund. The Hon’ble High Court recorded that though no specific relevant date is prescribed in the Notification, the ‘relevant date’ must be the date on which the final products are cleared for export. If any other conclusion is arrived, it will result in disentitling any person to make a claim for cenvat credit. Accordingly, the Hon’ble High Court held that time period of one year should be reckoned the date of export of goods. As such, we find that the impugned order is correct with reference to rejection of this claim. Regarding the refund of input duty of 29,57,205/- claimed under Rule 5, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndition No. 6 listed in the appendix in the notification, the refund should be filed with the Assistant Commissioner before the expiry of period specified in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In the present case, the appellant exported the goods in the year 2004 and filed the refund claim under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on 27.08.2007 before the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner. The refund claim was filed well beyond the period of one year from the date of shipment. The appellants pleaded that they have filed refund claim within one year of clarification dated 22.03.2007 of the Board and hence should be admitted for sanction. We find that the Board clarified that unutilised additional excise duty pertaining to input ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the said appellant were examined for a decision. Reliance was placed on the decision of M.P. High Court in STI India Ltd. vs. Commissioner - 2009 (236) ELT 248 (MP). We find the said decision of the M.P. High Court was also considered by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in GTN case. Considering the legal provisions and facts involved are more appropriately covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court, we find that the impugned order is correct on the question of time bar. 3. Regarding the refund of input duty of ₹ 29,57,205/- claimed under Rule 5, we note that the said inputs have been used in the manufacture of goods cleared for home consumption. In such situation provisions of Rule 5 has no application and as such we f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
