TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 314X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M.N. Bharathi, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri A.B. Niranjan Babu, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - These six appeals are by the same appellants arising out of common Order-in-Appeal Nos. 122 to 127/2009-C.E. dated 13-10-2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding rejection of refund claims under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 by different orders of the original authority details of which are as follows :- A. No. Order Sl. No. Date Period for which refund claimed relates Amount of refund claimed under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 Date of receipt of the claim 49/2009-C.E. 78/2009 dt. 31-3-2009 April - 06 to June 06 Rs. 2,18,866/- 25-1-2008 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rted out of India and that these three claims are also time-barred. The other three claims have been rejected on the ground that the appellants have not produced documentary evidence to show that the refund claims related to credit attributable to inputs contained in the exported products. The Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the order of the original authority on the ground that the appellants failed to furnish the required documents to verify the exports and to quantify the amount of refunds claimed by them. He also held that all the six claims are time-barred. 3.1 Learned counsel for the appellants submits that they were not able to utilize the credit as they were a 100% EOU and during the relevant period exported the entire final pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to CENVAT credit attributable to inputs used in goods exported during that quarter. 4. Learned SDR submits that the refund of unutilized credit under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 is governed by Notification No. 5/2006-C.E. (N.T.) dated 14-3-2006. He also submits that detailed guidelines have been issued by the Board vide Circular No. 120/1/2010-S.T. dated 19-1-2010 regarding the manner of claiming the refunds. Though the guidelines have been prescribed in 2010, the procedure envisaging the manner of satisfying that the refund relates to credit of duty relatable to inputs used in the products which were exported are relevant. He submits that, from some of the Orders-in-Original, the appellants have claimed refund of credit base ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty on the ground of time-bar also. The Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the order of the original authority also held that all the six claims are time-barred. Regarding the submission of learned SDR that Section 11B is applicable to refund of CENVAT credit under Rule 5, it is to be noticed that the credit accumulated in CENVAT credit account is not duty paid by the exporter. Only when the credit is debited towards duty payable it will amount to payment of duty. Section 11B clearly refers to refund of duty paid. The appellants are not claiming refund of any duty paid by them. They are claiming refund of CENVAT credit already taken by them which could not be utilized as they have accumulated due to exports as specifically provided under Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
