9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1308X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nst appellant. - E/688/2010 - Final Order No. 40414 / 2018 - Dated:- 12-2-2018 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri S.Murugappan, Advocate for the Appellant Shri S. Govindarajan, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per Bench Brief facts are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of automobile components. They undertook manufacturing activity as job worker also. Till 31.12.2006, the appellants were clearing manufactured goods to M/s. Hyundai Motor India Ltd. in their capacity as job worker. However, with effect from 1.1.2007, M/s. Hyundai Motor India Ltd., the raw material suppliers changed their pattern of supply of components from job work to ou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of duty by the appellants. In these circumstances, the appellants filed refund claim on 23.7.2008 for refund of ₹ 1,02,69,760/- being duty paid on raw materials sent to job workers during February and March 2007. The department issued show cause notice proposing to reject the refund claim as being time-barred under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The refund sanctioning authority rejected the refund claim as being time-barred which was upheld by Commissioner (Appeals). Hence this appeal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, ld. counsel Sh. S. Murugappan submitted that the appellant vide reply dated 6.10.2008 submitted that the application though filed under section 11B is for restoration of CENVAT credit and not for refund a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... job workers. 3. The ld. AR Shri S.Govindarajan reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that the appellant has field a refund claim under section 11B. The said provision does not envisage for taking recredit. Among the manufacturers to whom the appellant had supplied components, the two job workers had not agreed for the changed pattern of supply of components. Therefore, the appellant had raised sales invoices and paid duty in respect of the materials sent for job work. In fact, the refund claim is for duty pertaining to the materials sent / held by those job workers during the period February 2007 and March 2007. While filing refund claim, they ought to have preferred their claim within the time limit prescribed unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estoration of CENVAT credit. The claim filed beyond the period of limitation cannot be overcome by making a refund claim appear to be an application for restoration of CENVAT credit. The ld. counsel has heavily argued to contend that the two job workers having returned the goods and not having accepted the changed pattern no sales has been taken place. The credit having been reversed and the appellant having issued sales invoice retrospectively, amending their accounts so as to include the excise duty in the sales invoices, this contention of the appellant that the sale has not taken place does not find favour with us. We do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the lower authorities. The appeal is dismissed. ( Operat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
