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>Tribunal overturns time-barred rejection of refund claim under CENVAT Credit Rules</h1> <h3>Contour Apparels Versus Commissioner of Customs. Bangalore</h3> Contour Apparels Versus Commissioner of Customs. Bangalore - [2012] 37 STT 394 (BANG - CESTAT) Issues:Appeal against order of the Commissioner rejecting refund claim as time-barred under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules.Analysis:The case involved an appeal against the Commissioner's order rejecting a refund claim as time-barred under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules. The appellants, a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU), de-bonded their unit with accumulated CENVAT credit due to export of goods. The refund claim was filed for an amount of Rs.7,40,720/- for the period April 2005 to March 2007. A show-cause notice was issued proposing to reject the claim as time-barred, as it was received after the prescribed period. The original authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection.The appellant argued, citing the Tribunal's decision in GTN Engineering (I) Ltd. v. CCE, that the time limit under Section 11B does not apply to credit accumulated due to export and claimed as a refund under Rule 5. The Superintendent (AR) contended that the refund was made after de-bonding, and the original authority only held the claim as time-barred without considering other aspects.The Tribunal, after considering submissions, noted that the refund was of accumulated CENVAT credit claimed under Rule 5, and the time limit under Section 11B was not applicable as per the GTN Engineering case. It highlighted that the claim rejection based on lack of document production and time-bar was erroneous. The Tribunal clarified that Section 11B pertains to refund of duty paid, not CENVAT credit, and cited precedents supporting non-applicability of time limits to credit accumulated from exports.Consequently, the Tribunal found the rejection ground unsustainable and remanded the matter to the original authority for a fresh consideration of the refund claim, emphasizing the need to verify the correctness of the amount and the credit's relation to exports. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, setting aside the time-barred rejection and directing a reevaluation of the refund claim by the original authority.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
