TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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 Grants Appeal, Overturns Decision on Rebate Claim Under Cenvat Credit Rules</h1> The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the lower authorities' decision to reject the rebate claim under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The ... Rebate claim - time limitation - Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 read with N/N. 11/2005-ST - rejection on the ground that the said rebate claim have been filed beyond the period of one year as prescribed in Section 11B of the CEA, 1944 which is adopted for sanctioning of rebate claim under the FA, 1994 - Held that: - An identical issue came up before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of CCE vs. Dorcas Market Makers Pvt. Ltd. [2015 (4) TMI 118 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] where it was held that in the case of claim of rebate the prescription of one year u/s 11B will not apply as it is governed by another set of provisions - refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:Refund of rebate claim under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 11/2005-ST.Analysis:The issue in this case pertains to the refund of rebate claim under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 11/2005-ST. The lower authorities rejected the rebate claim on the grounds of being filed beyond the one-year period as prescribed in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, the Tribunal found errors in the lower authorities' conclusions. The Tribunal referred to a judgment by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of CCE vs. Dorcas Market Makers Pvt. Ltd. The High Court held that the one-year prescription under Section 11B does not apply to rebate claims as they are governed by a different set of provisions. The Tribunal highlighted the scheme of the Central Excise Act, emphasizing that Section 11B primarily deals with refund claims, while the entitlement to rebate is separately governed by Section 12. The Tribunal noted that the definition of 'relevant date' under Section 11B does not cover rebate claims, and the power to order refund under Section 11B(2) is protected by a non obstante clause. The Tribunal also pointed out that Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 does not stipulate a period of limitation for rebate claims, and the conditions, limitations, and procedures for rebate claims are prescribed by notifications issued by the Central Government.The Tribunal further cited judicial pronouncements by various High Courts, including the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, Punjab & Haryana, and Rajasthan, which upheld the view that the one-year limitation under Section 11B does not apply to rebate claims. Considering these authoritative judicial pronouncements and the undisputed export of service by the appellant on payment of appropriate tax, the Tribunal held that the lower authorities' decision to reject the rebate claim was unsustainable. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
