TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 788X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2013 - In appeal no. E/13077/2018 pertains to the period April 13 to June 13 and refund claim was filed on 09.04.14. In these circumstances it is seen that in both these cases the refund has been filed more or less within one year of limitation, the exact period of limitation would depend on the dates when the exports were made. The appellants would be entitled to refund in respect of exports made from 4.10.12 onwards in case of Appeal No. E/13076/2018 and from 9.4.2013 onwards in case of Appeal No. E/13077/2018. The matter regarding these two appeals is remanded for determination and sanction of exact amount of refund admissible in above terms - As regards other six appeals the only issue is if the appellants are entitled to re-credit o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s which are within the limitation. 2.1 Learned counsel pointed out that the lower authorities have not examined the issue in proper perspective and rejected the claims even within the period of limitation. He argued that two claims pertaining to Appeal Nos. E/13076/2018 E/13077/2018 are entirely within the period of limitation and should not have been rejected. He further argued that Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No.27/12-CE(NT) dated 18.06.2012 has an inbuilt mechanism to grant re-credit of amount of credit reversed earlier in order to claim refund, where refund sanctioned is less than the refund originally claimed. He pointed out that these view also taken in the case of INTEGRA SOFTWARE SERVICES P. L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t all. Learned counsel also attached the ER2 return for the month of January-2014 wherein at the end in the remark column there is a mention about the amount/period wise credit reversal for refund purposes. Learned Counsel further relied on the decision of tribunal in the case of SANDOZ PVT. LTD. 2015 (325) E.L.T. 387 (Tri.Mumbai) wherein it was held that even belated reversal of credit is good enough compliance for the purpose of refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. He pointed out that similar view was also taken in case of M/S. JMT CONSULTANT DETAILING PVT.LTD. 2019 (12) TMI 648- CESTAT Bangalore. He argued that in these circumstances when the credit stands reversed in the year 2014 itself which is not in dispute, merely ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on No. 27/2012 CE (NT) dated 18.6.2012. He pointed out that the appellants have claimed the benefit as per section 142(6) of CGST, 2017. He argued that this argument was not raised in the earlier proceedings before tribunal and he further argued that this tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate on the CGST matters. 4. I have considered the rival submissions. I find that the appellants had two units, one in DTA unit and other is 100% EOU, refund claim have been filed by both the units. DTA have cleared the goods against CT-3 to their 100% EOU and have claimed refund. The 100% EOU has claimed refund for goods exported. Earlier in the proceedings the matters was remanded by tribunal with following observations :- The issue of applica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E/13076/2018 Oct 12 to Dec 12 26.12.13 04.10.2013 7 E/13077/2018 April 13 to June 13 04.07.14 09.04.2014 8 E/13078/2018 March 11 to March 12 11.08.14 12.05.2014 4.1 Both the sides agree that Serial No.1,2,3,4,5 8 are beyond the limitation prescribed under Section 11B and therefore are barred by limitation while revenue is of the view that only Appeal No.E/13076/2018 is within the limitation of one year. The appellants are of the view that both Appeal No. E/13076/2018 E/13077/2018 are within the limitation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cision of the Mumbai tribunal in the case of Trimurti Plast Containers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is squarely applicable in the present case wherein the Tribunal in para 5 has held as under: 5. I find that issue involved is whether the appellant is entitled for the refund under Rule 5 during the period April, 2015 to June, 2015. I have gone through Rule 5 amended by Notification No. 6/2015-C.E. (N.T.) dated 1.3.2015 according to which definition of export goods was amended and amended definition reads as under : (1A) export goods means any goods which are to be taken out of India to a place outside India. As per the amended definition of export goods refund is only allowed in respect of export goods, which are taken outside India. Ld. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
