2006 (7) TMI 448 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on limitation and non-applicability of provisions for CVD.

Analysis:
The appellant imported raw material for manufacturing injections, which incurred CVD. Subsequently, the injections were exported, and a refund claim was filed under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The claim was rejected by authorities citing limitation and non-applicability of refund provisions to CVD. The appellant argued that CVD is akin to excise duty, citing legal precedent. The Revenue contended that CVD falls under the Customs Tariff Act and not the Central Excise Act for refund purposes.

The Tribunal examined whether the refund claim for CVD paid by the appellant is permissible under section 11B. Section 11B allows refund of excise duty on goods exported or on materials used in exported goods. The Tribunal noted that the appellant was eligible for Modvat/Cenvat credit on CVD, which aligns with section 11B provisions. Rejecting the refund without considering this aspect would go against legislative intent to encourage exports. The Tribunal emphasized the need for revenue to support export growth.

Regarding the time bar issue, the Tribunal found the appellant filed the refund claim within the stipulated period as per section 11B's explanation. As the relevant date for refund application was met, the rejection on time bar grounds was deemed invalid. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with any consequential relief.

The judgment, delivered on 27-7-2006 by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, highlights the importance of correctly interpreting statutory provisions to facilitate legitimate refund claims and support export-oriented businesses.