9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 335X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ged in the manufacture of textile articles falling under Chapter 62 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The respondents filed a refund claim on 29.3.2005 of Rs. 12,76,088/- under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules for the goods exported during the month of February and March 2004. The respondents availed cenvat credit on various inputs which were utilized in the manufacture of finished goods duly exported. Refund claim was filed as they could not utilize the credit. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim on two counts,, the respondents availed drawback claim for some portion of refund and the entire refund claim is barred by limitation. The Commissioner (Appeals) modified the adjudication order in so far as it has been held tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in STI India Ltd. Vs CCE - 2009 (236) ELT 248 (M.P) held that merely because refund claim application was not filed strictly within 6 months before the expiry period specified in clause (6) of Appendix read with Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944, but was filed later by 28 days could not have been made the sole ground for rejection of refund application as barred by limitation. In the case of CCE Jalandhar Vs JCT Ltd. 2013 (296) ELT 426 (Tri.-Del.) following the decision of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of STI India Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal held that since "relevant date" on counting limitation period not existing for cash refund under Rule 5 of CCR, the refund claim is not hit by limitation. 5. After ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nbsp; "6. Coming to the question of limitation, which is in respect of the claim for April, 2002 to June, 2002 period, Notification No. 11/2002-C.E. (N.T.), dated 1-3-2002 issued under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 provides that the application in the prescribed form for cash refund of the accumulated credit, which the manufacturer cannot use for payment of duty on the clearances for home consumption, must be submitted to jurisdictional Dy./Asstt. Commissioner 'before the expiry of the period, specified in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944', along with proof of export and other records. Earlier, when the provisions of cash refund of accumulated credit were in Rule 57F(4) of the Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... used in the manufacture of goods cleared for export under bond, the same is also linked with the manufacturers inability to utilise this credit for payment of duty on the clearances for home consumption. For this reason only, the Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Motors Ltd. (supra) has held that in respect of cash refund of accumulated credit filed under Rule 57F(4), the limitation period prescribed in Section 11B is not applicable. Same view has been taken by the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of STI Ltd. (supra), wherein Hon'ble High Court has held that strict law of limitation provided under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act would not apply to a claim for cash refund of accumulated credit made in terms of the notifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
