Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 1060 - CESTAT HYDERABAD
Refund of CENVAT Credit - closure of factory - period of limitation - goods cleared to the SEZ units without payment of duty - rejection of refund on the ground that the SEZ supplies were not to be treated as export of goods and that refund applications were not filed within the time limit - whether the application for refund of Cenvat credit under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 could be sanctioned after 01.04.2012 on the ground that the factory has been closed after a period of six years from the closure of such factory or otherwise?
HELD THAT:- When the Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 was amended w.e.f. 01.04.2012 there is no saving clause indicating that with respect to credits which were accumulated prior to this date the new provisions do not apply - The General Clauses Act allows continuation of any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired or accrued under any Act or enactment so repealed and also affects the previous operation of any Act or enactment so repealed. In this case, refund claims were filed prior to 01.04.2012 and these claims did not include refund claim on the ground that factory has been closed.
The issue was raised before this Tribunal in the first round of litigation which has been rejected by this Tribunal in M/S LATA’S HYDROCARBON RESOURCES PRIVATE LTD., VERSUS CC, CE & ST, HYDERABAD-IV [2016 (12) TMI 321 - CESTAT HYDERABAD]. The order of this Tribunal has not been set aside by any higher judicial forum. In pursuance of the remand by this final order, the original authority has sanctioned the refund claim. Therefore, all proceedings which had begun prior to 01.04.2012 have concluded unimpeded by the unamended Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 for a different amount on a different ground. A separate refund claim was filed after 01.04.2012 which is the issue in dispute.
The appellant was not entitled to refund as there was no saving clause when Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 was amended - Further, the period of limitation of one year for filing the refund claim has also been violated as refund claim was filed more than six years after alleged closure of the factory.
Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.