TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 840X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case. In such situation, we are not able to appreciate under which provision of law the present refund claim was preferred by the appellant. Neither the original order nor the impugned order discussed the legal provision under which the claim for the refund was made by the appellant. It is only mentioned that as the final product become exempted they were not able to use the credits lying in their book and hence the amount should be refunded in cash. In the absence of any legal provision in support of such refund claim we are not able to examine the merits of the claim. Regarding time limit, it is an admitted fact that the claim was filed after almost 10 years. No explanation has been provided by the appellant except to state that the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m should have been filed before one year from the relevant date in terms of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. In the present case the claim was filed on 24/4/2006 i.e. after about 10 years from the relevant date. On appeal, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) held that the Original Authority is correct in rejecting the claim as time barred. 2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal and various High Courts held that for claiming refund of unutilized Cenvat credit availed on inputs used in the goods exported under bond, the time limit will not apply. The following case laws are referred to by the learned Counsel for the appellant :- (a) Swagat Synthetics Ltd. vs. CCE, Surat reported in 2007 (220) E.L.T. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the merits of the claim. Regarding time limit, it is an admitted fact that the claim was filed after almost 10 years. No explanation has been provided by the appellant except to state that the provisions of Section 11B will not apply to the present case of refund. This position also, we are not able to appreciate in the absence of supporting legal provision. The learned Counsel relied on the decision of Hon ble Karnataka High Court in Union of India vs. Slovak India Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2006 (201) E.L.T. 559 (Kar.), the Hon ble High Court held that Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rule, 2002 does not expressly prohibit refund of unutilized credit in the event of closure of factory. We find in the present case, the appellant s factory wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
