9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efund claim is time barred, a Show Cause Notice was issued to them on 21.06.2010, proposing rejection of the same. On adjudication, the refund was rejected after considering the fact that the entire amount of accumulated credit relates to export of goods during the period 2005, hence barred by limitation. On appeal, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the said order of the Adjudicating authority. Hence, the present appeal. 4. The learned Advocate for the Appellant submits that the cash refund claim under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, for an amount of Rs. 15,72,347/- was filed on 07.02.2007, which was rejected. Later, they filed another refund claim on 17.12.2007, claiming refund of Rs. 24,55,908/- which includes Rs. 15,72, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the case of CCE Vs GTN Engineering - 2012-TIOL-369-High Court-MAD-CX [=2012 (281) E.L.T. 185 (Mad.)], CCE Chennai Vs (1) M/s Celebrity Designs India Pvt. Ltd. (2) CESTAT Chennai - 2015-TIOL-646-HC-MAD-CX [=2015 (321) ELT 221 (Mad.)] 6. I find that the present refund claim has been filed under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No.5/2006-CE(NT), dt.14.03.2006 as amended. Both the authorities below, after recording the fact that the credit has been accumulated on account of exports of goods made against various ARE-1 during the period April 2005 to December 2005 and exports made till January 2006, has been barred by limitation prescribed under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944, hence the said refund cannot be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... used shall be allowed. 15. A reading of the above rule, though there is 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 of refund of CENVAT credit. Admittedly, the respondent has made a claim only invoking Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. In that view of the matter, there cannot be any difficulty for us to hold that the relevant date should be the date on which the export of the goods was made and for such goods, refund of CENVAT credit is claimed. 7. Also, I find that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Steel Strips Vs CCE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
