TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appellate Tribunal upholds decision on time-barred refund claim under Cenvat Credit Rules</h1> <h3>M/s Auto Steels Versus CCE, Delhi I</h3> M/s Auto Steels Versus CCE, Delhi I - 2014 (312) E.L.T. 768 (Tri. - Del.) Issues: Refund of excess amount paid under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004; Applicability of limitation period under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, DELHI, the appellant, a manufacturer of leaf springs chargeable to Central Excise Duty, availed Cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant, while opting for SSI exemption for the next financial year in 2004-2005, paid an excess amount of Rs. 40,508/- towards Cenvat credit on inputs. The mistake was realized in November 2006 when a refund application was filed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Deputy Commissioner dismissed the refund application as time-barred, a decision upheld by the CCE (Appeals). The main contention raised by the appellant was that the limitation period under Section 11B should not apply to the refund claim of Cenvat credit as the amount reversed exceeded the required amount. On the other hand, the Departmental Representative argued that the refund claim falls under Section 11B and is subject to the prescribed limitation period.The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and examining the records, held that the claim for refund of the excess amount paid under Rule 11(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is covered by Section 11B. It was noted that the refund claim was filed after the expiry of the limitation period of one year from the relevant date. As the refund claim clearly fell within the purview of Section 11B, the Tribunal concluded that the claim was rightly rejected as time-barred. Therefore, the Tribunal found no error in the impugned order and dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision of the lower authorities. The judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to the prescribed limitation periods under the Central Excise Act, 1944, in matters concerning refund claims related to Cenvat credit.
TaxTMI 