9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 631X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Supreme Court decision in the case of Porcelain Electrical Mfg. Co. Vs, CCF, New Delhi [1994 (11) TMI 145 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], held that the refund claim filed before the departmental authorities are to be governed by the time limit provided under the statute. General law of limitation is not available and the decisions where assesses have invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of High Courts and the Courts have applied the period of three years are inapplicable to the cases where the refund applications have been moved before the Revenue authorities. In as much as admittedly, the period for filing refund claims in terms of Section 11 B is only one year, the refund claim filed by the assessee after the period of three and a half year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 81.39 in their Cenvat account, they applied for refund of the same vide their refund claim dated 25.03.2008. The same was sought to be denied on the ground of time bar as also on the other grounds and accordingly SCN was issued proposing such denial. The refund was rejected by the lower authorities primarily on the ground of time bar, which order stands upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) and hence the present appeal. 4. After hearing both sides, we note that prior to 09.07.2004 appellant was availing credit and paying duty. With effect from 09.07.2004 he had two options ie., either continue to pay duty by utilizing the credit in terms of Notification No. 29/2004-CE or to clear their final products at 'nil' rate of duty by disc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The said Rule allows refund of the accumulated and unutilized credit availed in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of final products which ultimately stands exported. Though, the Ld. Advocate has not been able to explain as to how the provisions of said Rule would apply to their case but, in any case we note that the said Rule stipulates the refund claim to be filed before the expiry of the period specified in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. Section 11B prescribes a period of one year from the relevant date. In as much as the refund stands filed after a period of three years and five months from the relevant date, the lower authorities have held the same to be barred by limitation. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... years. As such, the Tribunal being a creature of the statute has no jurisdiction to go beyond the period prescribed under the law. In as much as admittedly, the period for filing refund claims in terms of Section 11 B is only one year, the refund claim filed by the assessee after the period of three and a half years has to be held as having been filed beyond the limitation period of one year has to be rejected on the said ground. We may also note that in the present case, the refund stands filed even beyond the general period of limitation of three years. 10. In view of the above, we find no merits in the appeal and the same is accordingly rejected. (Order pronounced in the open court on 16/03/2018) - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
