9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 389X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2012. It can be seen that a consistent view has been taken by various benches that in respect of refund under Rule 5 wherein it is provided to file a refund claim for each quarter, the period of limitation shall be reckoned from the end of the quarter - In the present case the quarter ends on 30 June, 2012 from which the limitation prescribed under Section 11B expires on 30 June, 2013, whereas admittedly the refund claim for the quarter April, 2012 to June, 2012 was filed on 05.06.2013, which is well within the stipulated time limit of 1 year. Therefore, the refund in the instant case is clearly not time bar. Both the Lower Authorities have erred in holding that the refund claim of the appellant is time bar. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No. 10141 of 2019- DB - FINAL ORDER NO. A /11100/2022 - Dated:- 7-9-2022 - MR. RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Mrs. Nisha Bineesh, Advocate for the Appellant Shri G. Kirupanandan, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent ORDER The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a manufacturer of medicaments falling under chapter 30 of Central Excise T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... omsol Energy Pvt. Ltd vs. State Of Gujarat - 2021 (55) G.S.T.L. 390 (Guj). Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd vs. Commissioner Of Central Excise and Service Tax - 2022-TIOL-578-CESTAT-AHM). Commissioner of C. E, Indore vs. K.S. Oils Ltd.- 2017 (52) S.T.R. 261 (Tri.-Del.) 2.1 She further submits that the provisions of Rule 57 F of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 is para materia with Rule 5 of Cenvat credit Rule 2004, and in respect of the said old rule the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of C. Ex. Customs, Surat I Vs. Swagat Synthetics 2008 (232) ELT 413 (Guj.) held that the time limit under Section 11B is not applicable. She further submits that even if the limitation is applicable, it is a procedural aspect. which shall not come in the way of substantive law granting justifiable relief. In support, she placed reliance on the decision of Atma Steel vs. Collector 1984 (17) ELT 331. She also placed reliance in the case of Hindustan Motor Ltd. vs. Central Excise, Calcutta reported at 2008 (228) E.L.T. 133 (Tri. - Kolkata). 2.2 She further submits that according to Clause 2(a) of Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012 issued under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claimed shall be filed by the claimant, before the expiry of the period specified in section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. From the above it is clear that the time limit prescribed under Section 11B is clearly applicable in respect of the refund governed under Rule 5 of Cenvat credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 27/2012-CE. However, the condition provided for filing the refund is an asseessee has to file one refund claim at the end of the quarter for which refund is sought for. In the present case for the period April, 2012 to June, 2007, the refund claim has to be filed after completion of the quarter i.e in the month of July, 2012. In this case admittedly the refund claim was filed on 05.06.2013. It is clearly established that the refund claim was filed within 1 year from the due date even if it is taken as 1st July, 2012. Accordingly, in our considered view the refund was filed well within the time limit of 1 year as prescribed under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. This issue has been considered in the following judgments: Suretex Prophylactics India P. Ltd. 2020 (373) ELT 481 (Kar.) 13 . In the instant case, the appellant has obtai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Excise Act, 1944, has not elaborated any further application of the relevant date . It is now well-settled that, the claim for each quarter being restricted to one, the relevant date should be taken to be the last date of the quarter during which the exports have taken place. It is, therefore, apparent that the lower authorities have adopted an incorrect relevant date to the detriment of the appellant. This must be remedial. 5 . To enable such an exercise, the impugned order is set aside and the refund application restored to the original authority for deciding afresh on the eligibility to refund considering the application to have been filed within the period of limitation. Appeal is accordingly disposed of. Commissioner of Central Excise Pune- I vs. S.G. Analitics P .Ltd- 2016 45 STR 131 (T- Mum.) 5 . Turning to the issue of bar of limitation of time, the procedure laid down in the notification restricts filing of claims to only once in every quarter. It is also settled law that limitation will become operative only with reference to date of FIRC. Harmonious reading of both these would extend the relevant date to be the last date of the quarter in which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
