TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 796X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er. 2. The appellants filed refund claim for different quarters seeking refund of accumulated unutilized CENVAT Credit on various inputs used for manufacture of the goods exported. Refund claim was filed under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR), 2004 read with Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012. A show cause notice was issued proposing to reject the refund for the reason that the claim is hit by limitation. After due process of law, the refund sanctioning authority rejected the refund claims as filed beyond the period of one year and therefore time barred. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same. Hence these appeals. 3. On behalf of the appellant on 16.03.2017 Ld. Counsel argued the appeal no. 22751/2014. The case then was adjourned to 27.03.2017 to he heard along with the other connected appeals. The Ld. Counsel has filed written submissions. 4. The argument put forward by the Ld. Counsel for appellant is that the condition in para 4 of the Notification No. 5/2006-CE (NT) along with Rule 5 would go to show that relevant date for computing the period of limitation for filing refund claim is not the date of export of goods. That the relevant da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2012-CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012. The Notification No. 5/2006 has been succeeded by the present Notification No. 27/2012. These notifications issued under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 for claiming refund of unutilized CENVAT Credit, inter alia, stipulates certain conditions and safeguards. One of the condition is that the refund claim should be filed before the expiry of one year under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant has filed the refund claim on 05.09.2013. The authorities below have computed the relevant date/starting point of limitation as the date on which the goods are cleared to SEZ. Thus the refund claims are clearly beyond one year from the date of export of the goods covered in the shipping bills. For example; when the export of goods is on 23.01.2012 the appellant ought to have filed the refund claim on or before 22.01.2013. The refund claim is filed on 05.09.2013. He submitted that the judgment rendered by the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s GTN Engineering (India) Ltd., (supra) covers the issue under consideration. That therefore, the refund claims have been rightly rejected on the ground of limitation. 7. I have heard the submissions before m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... EZ (21.04.2011 to 08.03.2012). Thus authorities below have rejected the refund claim observing that the refund claims are beyond the period of one year as prescribed in Section 11B. 8. One of the argument put forward by the Ld. Counsel is that the relevant date should be reckoned as the date on which the manufacturer reaches a conclusion that he is not able to utilise the accumulated credit. This argument of the Ld. Counsel appears to be too flimsy. Law prescribes a period of limitation in order to give finality to disputes. Section 11B not only prescribes the period of limitation as one year, but also lays down the relevant date i.e. the starting point of computing the period of one year. If the mind set of each manufacturer as to when he decides that he is not able to utilise the accumulated credit is to form the basis (starting point) for computing the limitation period, it will give rise to uncertainity and utter chaos. Therefore, this argument of appellant is not tenable. 9. The issue whether the limitation prescribed in Section 11B is applicable to refund claims filed under Notification No. 5/2006 was subject to analysis by the Hon ble High Court of Madras in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such adjustment is not possible, the manufacturer or provider of output service shall be allowed refund of such amount subject to such safeguards, conditions and limitations, as may be specified, by the Central Government, by notification. 13. In terms of the said rule, the Central Government should notify as to the safeguards, conditions and limitations. Accordingly, Notification No. 5/2006-C.E. (N.T.), dated 14-3-2006 has issued. Clause 6 appendix to the notification reads as under : 6. The application in Form A, along with the prescribed enclosures and the relevant extracts of the records maintained under the Central Excise Rules, 2002, CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, or the Service Tax Rules, 1994, in original are filed with the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise or the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, before the expiry of the period specified in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) . 14. The said notification prescribes a period of one year, as provided under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, for the purpose of making application in Form-A along with prescribed enclosures and also the relevant extracts of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
