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 23 - CESTAT NEW DELHIRejection of refund claim - additional duties of excise - Notification No. 5/2006-CE(NT) dated 14.03.2006 as amended by Notification No. 13/2007-CE(NT) dated 01.03.2007 - time bar - Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules does not cover a situation where the refund can be granted in respect of final products cleared for domestic consumption - Held that: - the Hon’ble Madras High Court in CCE, Coimbatore vs. GTN Engineering (I) Ltd., [2011 (8) TMI 960 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] examined similar set of facts. It was held that the notification prescribed a period of one year as provided under Section 11B for making the application for refund. The Hon’ble High Court recorded that though no specific relevant date is prescribed in the Notification, the ‘relevant date’ must be the date on which the final products are cleared for export. If any other conclusion is arrived, it will result in disentitling any person to make a claim for cenvat credit. Accordingly, the Hon’ble High Court held that time period of one year should be reckoned the date of export of goods. As such, we find that the impugned order is correct with reference to rejection of this claim. Regarding the refund of input duty of ₹ 29,57,205/- claimed under Rule 5, we note that the said inputs have been used in the manufacture of goods cleared for home consumption. In such situation provisions of Rule 5 has no application and as such we find no justification to interfere with the findings of the lower authority. Appeal dismissed - decided in favor of appellant.
|