TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 79X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f refund of the nature in the present case. This Tribunal in M/S. SPECTRAMIX PLASTICS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE ST., VAPI [ 2014 (5) TMI 682 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] clearly made observation that refund claim in terms of Notification No. 5/2006-CE (NT) issued under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is subject to one year time bar as prescribed under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. The refund of the appellant is correctly rejected on time bar as the same was not filed within the stipulated period of one year - Appeal dismissed. - Excise Appeal No. 12553 of 2018 - A/12297/2021 - Dated:- 30-7-2021 - MR. RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri. Pradeep Jain, Chartered Accountant for the Appellant Shri Vinod Lukose, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER The issue involved is that whether time limit prescribed under Section 11B shall apply for refund of Cenvat Credit under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 read with Notification No. 5/2006-CE (NT) dated 14.03.2006 in respect of refund for the period April 2008 to June 2008. Both the lower authorities have rejected the refund claim on the ground that as per the amended Notificati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was rightly rejected as time bar by the lower authority. He placed reliance on the following judgements: Suretax Prophylactics India P. Ltd. 2020 (373) ELT 481 (Kar.) CCE Coimbatore vs GTN Engineering (I) Ltd. 2012 (281) ELT 185 (MAD) 2019 (369) ELT 791 (Tri. Ahmd.) Petronet LNG Ltd. Shaily Engineering Plastics Ltd. A/10281/2020 dated 27.01.2020 Emerson Innovation Center 2018 (8) GSTL 400 (Tri. Mum.) Shaily Engineering Plastics Ltd. A/12224/2017 dated 31.08.2017 Spectamix Plastics vs CCE Vapi 2014 (307) ELT 353 (Tri. Ahmd) Banswara Syntex Ltd. Vs CCE Jaipur 2017 (345) ELT 547 (Tri. Del.) CCE vs Rangdhara Polymers 2011 (264) ELT 275 (Tri. Ahmd) Sanghi Textiles 2006 (206) ELT 854 (Tri. Bang.) Anjani Synthetics 2001 (132) ELT 688 (Tri. Mum.) CCE vs Celebrity Designs India P. Ltd. 2015 (321) ELT 221 (Mad.) Paul Mason Consulting India Pvt. Ltd. 2016 (335) ELT 153 (Tri. Ahmd) CCE vs Doaba Co-operative Sugar Mills 1988 (37) ELT 478 (SC) 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records. The limited issue involved in the present case is that whether the refund under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed, leaves India, . From the above definition of relevant date , it can be seen that sub clause (a) of Clause (B) of definition of relevant date clearly covers the refund of duty paid in respect of the excisable material used in the manufacture of export goods. In the present case, the refund under Rule 5 is also in respect of the duty paid on the material used in the manufacture of export goods. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is no mention about the relevant date in respect of refund of the nature in the present case. The identical issue has been considered under various judgements. In the case of Suretax Prophyplastics vs CCE (supra) the Hon ble High Court has given the following observation: 10 . A plain reading of the above Rule would indicate that where any input for input service is used in the manufacture of final product which is cleared for export under Bond or letter of undertaking, the Cenvat credit in respect of the same, so used shall be allowed to be utilized by the manufacturer or provider of output service so used and shall allowed to be utilized by the manufacturer or provider of output service and if for any reason, such adjustment is not possib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1944 would squarely be attracted in respect of the claims made for refund of Cenvat credit. Notification dated 1-3-2016 is a notification issued amending the Notification No. 27/2012, dated 18-6-2012 whereunder paragraph 3 of clause (b) of notification dated 18-6-2012 came to be substituted as indicated hereinbelow : (b) The application in the Form A along with the documents specified therein and enclosures relating to the quarter for which refund is being claimed shall be filed as under : (i) in case of manufacturer, before the expiry of the period specified in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944); (ii) in case of service provider, before the expiry of one year from the date of - (a) receipt of payment in convertible foreign exchange, where provision of service had been completed prior to receipt of such payment; or (b) issue of invoice, where payment for the service had been received in advance prior to the date of issue of the invoice. Similar view was taken by this Tribunal in the case of Spectramix Plastics vs CCE (supra). This Tribunal clearly made observation that refund claim in terms of Notification No. 5/2006-CE (NT) issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
