9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 317X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he inputs used in or in relation to manufacture of the final product. During the disputed period, the appellant availed cenvat credit of AED (T & TA) on the raw material procured by it. Since the final product manufactured by it does not attract AED (T & TA), the appellant was not in a position to utilize the cenvat credit for payment of such duty on the final product. Thus, the appellant had filed the refund application, claiming refund of AED (T & TA) paid by it. The refund application was rejected by the original authority on the ground that the appellant had not fulfilled the conditions prescribed in the Notification No. 5/2006/CE (NT) dated 14.03.2006. The adjudicating authority had also rejected the refund claim on the ground that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that since the refund claim was filed beyond one year from the relevant date, the same is clearly barred by limitation of time. 5. Heard both sides an examined the case records. 6. The issue involved in this appeal for consideration by the Tribunal is, as to whether, the time limit prescribed in Section 11B ibid would be applicable for refund of accumulated cenvat credit under Rules 5 ibid. 7. The provisions governing refund of Cenvat credit of service tax paid on the input services, used for exportation of the manufactured goods are contained in Rule 5 ibid. The said rule provides that even though export of goods does not attract payment of Central Excise duty, yet the manufacturer is permitted to utilize the Cenvat credit attributable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is different from the facts of the present case, in as much as, the issue in the said decided case is not in context with the time limit prescribed in notification dated 14.03.2006, providing the embargo for filing the refund claim within one year from the relevant date. Contrary is the situation in the case in hand, where the issue is entirely confined to the applicability of the time limit prescribed in the said notification read with the provisions of Section 11B of the Act, for claiming refund of unutilized Cenvat credit on account of exportation of goods. Hence, the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of mPortal India (supra), cited by the ld. Advocate is distinguishable from the present case. Rather, the case of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tte." The said rule does not prescribe any time-limit. In the absence of such prescription as to the limitation, the Gujarat High Court has held that the claim of refund could not be rejected on the ground of limitation. 17. The learned counsel would also rely upon a Judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore reported in 2009 (236) E.L.T. 248 (M.P.) [STI India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Indore]. In that case, though the Court has held that Clause 6 of Appendix read with Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944, cannot be made applicable insofar as the period of limitation is concerned when a claim for CENVAT credit is made, a reading of the said provision shows that there is no reference to Rule 5. With great r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
