2017 (5) TMI 945 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal allowed for refund claim under Cenvat Credit Rules: Export timing key.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding a refund claim under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which was rejected due to goods being exported in a ... Refund claim - amount of duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of goods i.e. yarn exported under a letter of undertaking - rejection on the ground that goods exported are not related to the quarter or the month of the refund claim filed by the appellant - Held that: - date of export of goods is relevant for calculating the limitation of one year for filing the refund claims as provided u/s 11B of CEA and not the ‘conditions of quarter or months’ given in N/N. 5/2006 - reliance placed in the case of M/s. Reliance Chemotex Industries Ltd. Versus C.C.E. Jaipur-II [2015 (6) TMI 1015 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that refund cannot be rejected on the ground that goods exported are not related to the quarter or the month of the refund claim filed by the appellant - refund allowed - decided in favor of assessee. Issues:Refund claim under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 rejected due to goods exported in a different month than the claimed quarter.Analysis:The appellant, engaged in manufacturing cotton and manmade yarn, filed a refund claim for duty paid on inputs used in manufacturing yarn exported under a letter of undertaking. The Revenue rejected the refund, stating the goods were exported in October, not during the claimed quarter of July to September. The dispute centered on the timing of export relative to the refund claim period.The Tribunal noted that there was no dispute regarding the export of goods, and the Revenue would have granted the refund if the claim was filed later. The Revenue's objection was solely based on the goods not being related to the quarter of the refund claim. The appellant argued that the date of export, not the specific quarter or month, should determine the refund claim's limitation period under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. They cited Tribunal decisions to support their position.Referring to a specific case, the Tribunal highlighted that the refund claim was within the limitation period despite goods physically leaving in a different month. The Tribunal emphasized that since the goods were exported within the prescribed time frame, denial of refund solely based on the month of physical export was unwarranted. Based on these discussions and the Tribunal's observations, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief deemed appropriate.