TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 353X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he claim should have been filed within one year of export is not applicable to the present case as the amount was claimed as rebate initially well within time. Regarding the remaining amount of the claim for which also the present refund claim relates, it is seen that the claim filed on 18/5/2011 cannot be extended to cover a credit available in the books of appellant on 09/7/2004. Even if it is considered that no specific time limit is prescribed for refund claim under Rule 5 in terms of Section 11B, the present claim for this amount after a period of more than six years cannot be covered even applying the provisions of General Clauses Act, 1897. We find that the appellant is, in principle, eligible for refund of AED [T&TA] under Rule 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ey have utilized ₹ 1,22,234/- for payment of AED [T TA] liable during period 01/7/2004 to 08/7/2004. In March 2005 they are filed three rebate claims on the duty amounts [BED, AED [T TA] and E. Cess]. These rebate claims were rejected by the Original Authority and on appeal the same was allowed. On further appeal by the Revenue, the Revision Authority set aside the appellate order and restored the original order of rejection of rebates. The appellants moved the Honble High Court of Rajasthan which was later dismissed as withdrawn by the Honble High Court. They have taken re-credit of the amounts which was earlier debited in their account, before filing rebate claims in March, 2005. The said re-credit was approved by the Jurisdiction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 2006 (198) E.L.T. 521 (Tri. - Bang.) ; (c) The refund claim under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules is not governed by the time limit prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. There is no relevant date prescribed under the said Section to cover the claim filed under Rule 5. Reliance was placed on Tribunal s decisions in CCE, Jalandhar vs. JCT Ltd. reported in 2013 (296) E.L.T. 426 (Tri. Del.) which followed the decision of Hon ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of STI Ltd. vs. CCE, Indore reported in 2009 (236) E.L.T. 248 (M.P.), in Deepak Spinners Ltd. vs. CCE, Indore reported in 2014 (302) E.L.T. 132 (Tri. - Del.), CCE, Pune - II vs. Patodia Syntex Ltd. reported in 2016 - TIOL - 933 - CESTAT - MUM and El ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m payment of AED [T TA]. It is also an admitted fact that the appellants were exporting the final products. Initially they have exported under claim for rebate. The said rebate claims were subjected to proceedings. Originally rejected by the Assistant Commissioner rebate claims were allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) later disallowed on revision by the Government. Later the appellants filed writ-petition which was dismissed as withdrawn in Honble Rajasthan High Court. Thereafter, they took re-credit of originally debited amounts which were claimed as rebate amounts. The AED portion of such amount in credit is ₹ 22,54,910/-. On the date of exemption (08/7/2004), the appellants had a credit balance of ₹ 26,85,740/-. After util ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is restricted in terms of sub-rule (7). Therefore, such unutilized accumulated credit of AED [T TA] can be claimed as refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on export of goods. Accordingly, it is clarified that clarification issued for the refund of AED (GSI) under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 vide Boards Circular No. 701/17/2003-CX. dated 12/3/2003, will be applicable to AED [T TA] subject to the conditions and limitations as prescribed under the said rules. 7. That the appellants exported finished goods and accumulated AED [T TA] in their credit account has not been disputed. The AED [T TA] was exempt both for inputs and final products with effect from the same day. Keeping in view the scope of Boards clari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd after the withdrawal of writ-petition filed in Hon ble High Court of Rajasthan, the appellant re-credited the debited account in their Cenvat account. This has been approved by the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner. Out of such re-credits an amount of ₹ 22,54,910/- relates to AED [T TA]. The re-credit was taken in November 2010 and intimated to the Department the same was approved, ex-post facto, by the Jurisdictional officer on 12/5/2011. Refund of AED [T TA] amounting to ₹ 22,54,910/- could be claimed as a refund only because of such re-credit. Without such re-credit the said amount cannot become part of the present claim under Rule 5. Considering the above factual position and sequence of events leading to the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
