9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 220X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed as the relevant date then the refund application would be hit by limitation - appeal dismissed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/1226/2010 - Order No. A/10683 / 2017 - Dated:- 31-3-2017 - Dr D. M. Misra, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) For Applicant : Shri A Chordiya, Chartered Accountant For Respondent : Shri S N Gohil, Authorised Representative ORDER Per Dr D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orts made during the quarter April 2007-June 2007, refund claim was field on 30.6.2008 ie., within one year of the stipulated period prescribed under Notification No 5/2016-CE(NT) dt 14..3.2006 as amended for filing the quarterly refund claim. It is his contention that date of export cannot be considered as the cut off date/relevant date for computation of the period of one year as prescribed unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that if the date of export is considered as the relevant date then the refund application would be hit by limitation. The short issue thus involved is whether the refund is barred by limitation. I agree with the contention of Ld AR for the Revenue that the aforesaid issue is no more res integra as settled by the judgment of the Hon ble Madras High Court in GTN Enng (I) Ltd case. Taking into consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e learned counsel for the assessee that the provision defining relevant date does not cover the claim for refund of CENVAT credit. We may point out that when a statute empowered for such claim, the said provision must be read to find out as to the relevant date. Rule 5 specifies that where any input or input service is used in the manufactures of final product which is cleared for export under bon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt of the goods was made and for such goods, refund of CENVAT credit is claimed. 6. Also, the Hon ble Madras High Court analysing the judgment of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Swagat Synthetics case observed that since no time limit has been prescribed under sub Rule (13) of Rule 57F of CER, 1944, hence the principle laid down therein is not applicable to the present case. In thes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
