TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 826X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of which Cenvat Credit got accumulated in the records of the appellant. These facts are not disputed by the adjudicating authority and Commissioner (Appeals) has clearly gone beyond the scope of the show cause notice to raise the issue of export of goods is not under bond. Refund claim can be filed once in a year and it is not obligatory to file periodical refund claims as prescribed under Notification No.5/2006-CE(NT). It is the case of the appellant that refund claim is filed within a period of one year from the relevant date as specified in Explanation (B) of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - As there is no clarity from the rival submissions made by either sides whether refund claim was filed by the appellant within one ye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that the facts stated in paragraph no.2 of the OIA dt. 25.02.2011 passed by the first appellate authority clearly bring out that the refund claim filed was for unutilized Cenvat Credit in appellants Cenvat Credit because of the clearance of the final products to 100% EOU. It was his case that the main issue involved before the lower authorities was whether clearances made to 100% EOU under CT-3 certificates should be considered as exports or not. He relied upon the following judgments to support his claim that exports made to 100% EOU are also treated as exports for the purpose of getting refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004: (i) M/s. Western Cans P Ltd. Vs. CCE, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... venue argued that the conditions specified under Notification No.5/2006-CE(NT), dt. 14.03.2006 have not been fulfilled as the refund claims were not filed within the prescribed limit specified in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which have been made applicable by virtue of Clause 6 in the Appendix to Notification No.5/2006-CE(NT). It was his case that refund claims were not filed within the time limit prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He relies upon the judgment of Hon ble High Court of Madras in the case of CCE, Coimbatore Vs. GTM Engineering (I) Ltd. wherein it was held that limitations provided under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 will also be applicable to the refund claims under Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d under bond and the unutilized credit has accumulated due to export under bond. It is observed from the case records that the facts available on records clearly suggest that the goods were supplied to 100% EOU under CT-3 certificates as a result of which Cenvat Credit got accumulated in the records of the appellant. These facts are not disputed by the adjudicating authority and Commissioner (Appeals) has clearly gone beyond the scope of the show cause notice to raise the issue of export of goods is not under bond. Accordingly, on merits the issue stands decided in favour of the appellant in as much as clearances made to the 100% EOU are deemed exports in view of Hon ble High Court of Gujarats order in the case of M/s. Shilpa Copper Wire I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
