2017 (6) TMI 108 - AT - Central Excise

Appellate tribunal rejects cash refund claim under CENVAT Credit Rules.

M/s Hiral Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of C. Ex. & S. Tax, Daman

The appellate tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appeal due to its lack of merit. The appellant's cash refund claim under Rule 5 of CENVAT ... Refund claim - denial on account of time limitation - Held that: - the credit has been accumulated on account of exports of goods made against various ARE-1 during the period April 2005 to December 2005 and exports made till January 2006, has been barred by limitation prescribed u/s 11B of CEA, 1944, hence the said refund cannot be allowed to them - reliance placed in the case of Commissisoner of Central Excise Versus GTN Engineering [2011 (8) TMI 960 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], where it was held that the relevant date should be the date on which the export of the goods was made and for such goods - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. Issues:- Time-barred cash refund claim under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.- Admissibility of cash refund of accumulated credit due to export of goods.- Compliance with the procedure under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.- Interpretation of relevant date for making a claim for refund of CENVAT credit.- Denial of cash refund of accumulated credit under Modvat law.Analysis:1. Time-barred cash refund claim under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004:The appellant filed a cash refund claim under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, for an amount accumulated due to export of goods. However, the claim was rejected as time-barred since the entire amount of accumulated credit related to exports during a specific period, making it ineligible for refund beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.2. Admissibility of cash refund of accumulated credit due to export of goods:The appellant contended that their factory closure prevented them from utilizing the accumulated credit, justifying their claim for cash refund. The appellate authority and the Adjudicating authority upheld the rejection of the refund claim, emphasizing that the credit accumulation was solely due to exports and did not meet the criteria for cash refund under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.3. Compliance with the procedure under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004:The Revenue argued that the appellant failed to follow the prescribed procedure under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, and Notification No.5/2006-CE (NT), dt.14.03.2006, for filing the refund claim. The non-compliance with procedural requirements raised doubts about the admissibility of the cash refund claim.4. Interpretation of relevant date for making a claim for refund of CENVAT credit:The judgment referred to the Hon'ble Madras High Court's decision in the case of GTN Engineering, emphasizing the significance of the relevant date for claiming CENVAT credit refund. The relevant date was determined as the date of export of goods, aligning with the statutory provisions and ensuring that the refund claims are made within the stipulated time frame.5. Denial of cash refund of accumulated credit under Modvat law:The Tribunal's decision in the case of Steel Strips Vs CCE Ludhiana highlighted the restrictions on cash refund of accumulated credit under Modvat law. The law specified that refunds were permissible only in the case of exports, emphasizing the need for explicit statutory provisions to authorize refunds, thereby dismissing the appellant's claim for cash refund.In conclusion, the appellate tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appeal due to its lack of merit based on the detailed analysis of the issues surrounding the time-barred cash refund claim, compliance with procedural requirements, interpretation of the relevant date for refund claims, and the restrictions on cash refunds under Modvat law.