2018 (3) TMI 1374 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal allows appeals, overturns rejection of refund applications under Cenvat Credit Rules.

M/s. Jyoti Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Versus C.C.E., Raipur-II

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the rejection of refund applications under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. It held that the ... Refund of accumulated CENVAT credit - time limitation - Section 11 B of the CEA 1944 - Held that: - the legislatures have not specifically prescribed the relevant date in context with filing of refund application of un-accumulated CENVAT credit in terms of Rule 5 of the CCR. Thus, the refund application filed by the applicant cannot be straight away rejected, by considering the date of export as the relevant date for consideration of such time limit. The Tribunal in the case of JCT Ltd. [2013 (12) TMI 583 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] has held that the refund application cannot be rejected in terms of Section 11B of the Act. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:Refund application rejection based on limitation under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.Analysis:The appeals were against the order rejecting the refund application under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 due to limitation. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing 'Isabgol', filed refund claims for service tax paid on taxable services for the period 01.10.2006 to 31.03.2008. The refund applications were initially filed on 30.07.2008 and resubmitted on 24.07.2009. The rejection was based on filing beyond one year from the date of export, deemed inadmissible under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.The appellant's consultant argued that the 'relevant date' under Explanation (2) of Section 11B did not apply to refund of accumulated Cenvat Credit under Rule 5. The absence of a specific provision regarding the relevant date for refund claims under Rule 5 meant the rejection was not in line with statutory provisions. The consultant cited precedents like JCT Ltd. and Good Year India Ltd. to support this argument.On the other hand, the Revenue's representative maintained that the date of realization of export proceeds should be considered the relevant date for calculating the time period for filing the refund application. After hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal found that Section 11B did not specify the relevant date for filing refund applications of un-accumulated Cenvat credit under Rule 5. Citing the decision in the case of JCT Ltd., the Tribunal held that the refund application could not be rejected under Section 11B. The Tribunal emphasized that the limitation period under Section 11B did not apply to claims for cash refund of accumulated credit under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002.Based on the settled legal position, the Tribunal found no merit in the impugned order and allowed the appeals in favor of the appellant, setting aside the rejection of the refund applications.