2014 (10) TMI 17 - AT - Central Excise

Appeals dismissed, refund claim rejected due to time limit & errors in Cenvat Credit recovery

M/s GHASIRAM GOLAKCHAND SHIP BREAKING YARD Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, BHAVNAGAR

M/s GHASIRAM GOLAKCHAND SHIP BREAKING YARD Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, BHAVNAGAR - TMI Issues:1. Restoration of appeal dismissed for non-prosecution.2. Availment of Cenvat Credit and subsequent recovery of excess amount.3. Rejection of refund claim due to limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.Analysis:1. The appeal was initially dismissed for non-prosecution but later restored. The issue was taken up promptly due to its narrow compass.2. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing iron and steel goods, mistakenly debited an amount of Cenvat Credit in October 2001 but re-credited it in October 2004 without following proper procedures. The Joint Commissioner disallowed the credit, leading to rejection of the refund claim by the Assistant Commissioner.3. The appellant argued that they correctly availed the Cenvat Credit based on CVD payment and fulfilled the conditions for credit availment. They cited a High Court decision on limitation starting from the discovery of the mistake. The Departmental Representative contended that the claim was time-barred under Section 11B.4. The Tribunal noted the appellant's error in debiting excess duty in 2001 and re-crediting it in 2004 without proper documentation or recovery indication. The appellant had already paid the disputed amount and interest, settling the issue.5. The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claim as it exceeded the one-year limit under Section 11B. The first appellate authority's decision to reject the appeals was deemed correct, and no interference was warranted.6. Ultimately, the appeals were rejected, affirming the lower authorities' decisions. The judgment was pronounced on 25.3.2014 by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad.