Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 837 - AT - Central ExciseRefund claim u/r 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 - bringing back of defective goods sent to distributor, for reprocesssing u/r 173H - the goods cleared again on payment of duty - refund claim sought for duty paid originally - Held that: - The defective goods brought back into the factory cannot be categorized under either of the two categories; consequently, the claim of modvat credit has to be disallowed as has been rightly done by the authority below. A lot of arguments have been raised by the appellant regarding the 2nd proviso to Rule 57G which allows modvat credit to be taken only within a period of six months from the date of the gate pass. However, we find that the modvat credit itself is not admissible for the basic reason that these goods do not satisfy the criteria of input or capital goods. Time bar - Held that: - to obviate the difficulty of payment of duty twice, Rule 173L provides for refund of the duty paid on the goods at the time of original clearance. Such refunds are subject to the condition prescribed in Rule 173L. The refund claim under such circumstances is required to be filed within the period prescribed under Section 11B. The relevant date as per Section 11B in this case is the date of entry of the goods into the factory for the purposes of remaking, refinishing, reconditioning etc - It is on record that the last consignment was brought back to the factory on 29.03.1998. Consequently, the refund claim is required to be filed within a period of six months from this date i.e. 29.09.1998. It is on record that the refund claim stands filed on 04.01.1999 which is clearly time barred. The time limit prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act is mandatory and cannot be diluted for a reason that certificates cannot be procured. While we are able to appreciate the claim of the appellant that such delays might have occurred in procuring the certificates, we are unable to give any relief on the question of time bar. Appeal dismissed - decided against Assessee.
|