TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 669X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted:- 28-3-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member (Judicial) Shri M.V. Sridhar, Advocate for the assessee Shri Guna Ranjan, Superintendent (AR) for Revenue ORDER Both the appeals being connected are disposed by this common order. Appeal No. E/1481/2010 2. The assessee/appellants are manufacturers of SS storage tanks and reactors. They filed a refund claim dt. 25/06/2009 claiming refund of ₹ 14,69,385/- towards refund of CENVAT credit in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of final products which are cleared for export to SEZ units. The Refund Sanctioning Authority rejected the refund claim on various grounds including the ground that the claim is time-barred. The appellants filed appeal before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted that clause 6 of Appendix of Notification No.5/2006 expressly states that the refund claim has to be filed before the expiry of the period specified in Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. Section 11B stipulates one year from relevant date as the period for filing the refund claim. Explanation to Section 11B states how the relevant date has to be reckoned. In the case of export of goods, the relevant date is mentioned as the date of export and in the present case, it will be the date when the goods are received in the SEZ. That in the present case, the last date pertaining to the refund claim is 20/06/2008 which is the date on which the last consignment of the quarter has been received in the SEZ. When this date is taken as the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... levant quarter has to be considered as the relevant date/starting point for computing limitation of one year. The appellant can file refund claim of the quarter of April to June 2008 till 30/06/2008. That therefore the refund claim filed on 25/06/2008 should not be considered to be well within the time. The said argument is against what is stated in Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. In the Explanation to the Section, it states how the relevant date has to be reckoned. In the case of export of goods, the relevant date is the date of export or the date on which goods crosses the frontier. The said issue has been discussed in the case of GTN Engineering (l) Ltd. (supra). The Hon'ble High Court observed as under:- 14 . The sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are cleared for export. If any other conclusion is arrived, it will result in disentitling any person to make a claim of refund of CENVAT credit. Admittedly, the respondent has made a claim only invoking Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. In that view of the matter, there cannot be any difficulty for us to hold that the relevant date should be the date on which the export of the goods was made and for such goods, refund of CENVAT credit is claimed. The relevant date has been held by the Hon ble High in such situations to be the date on which export of goods was made. Following the same, I hold that the relevant date is the date on which goods were received in SEZ i.e. 20/06/2008. Therefore, refund claim dated 25/06/2009 is barred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
