2019 (5) TMI 211 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal grants appeal, allows refund claim under Central Excise Act, with interest.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and granting relief to the appellant on all issues. The refund claim was held not ... Refund of accumulated CENVAT credit - time limitation - relevant dates for considering the time limitation - Section 11B of the Central Excise Act - HELD THAT:- This issue is no more res integra and has been settled by various decision of the Tribunal and the High Court that the date of submission of the original claim should be considered for the purpose of reckoning the limitation and not the date of submission of rectified claim. This Tribunal in the case of M/S. KUMARASWAMY MINERAL EXPORTS VERSUS C.C.,C.E. & S. T-BELGAUM [2019 (2) TMI 1378 - CESTAT BANGALORE] has held that the date of filing the refund claim in case where the original refund claim under Rule 5 filed is returned pointing deficiencies and the refund is refilled will be the date of filing the original claim. Thus, the date of filing the original claim should be considered for the purpose of reckoning the limitation - the refund claim filed by the appellant is within the period of limitation. The appeal is accordingly allowed with consequential relief of interest on delayed refund. Issues:1. Refund claim barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.2. Entitlement to refund of accumulated cenvat credit under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.3. Applicability of interest on delayed sanction of refund.Analysis:Issue 1: Refund claim barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise ActThe appeal was filed against the rejection of the refund claim on the grounds of limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the claim as time-barred, citing the date of resubmission of the claim as the starting point for calculating the limitation period. However, the appellant argued that the original claim submission date should be considered for limitation purposes. The Tribunal referred to various decisions, including M/s. Dic Fine Chemicals Pvt. Limited and M/s. Kumaraswamy Mineral Exports, which emphasized that the date of the original claim submission should be the relevant date for limitation. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, holding that the refund claim was within the limitation period.Issue 2: Entitlement to refund of accumulated cenvat credit under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal, stating that the appellants were entitled to a refund of accumulated cenvat credit despite availing drawback at All Industry Rates on the exported goods. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing that the appellants' claim for refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was valid. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, granting consequential relief of interest on delayed refund as per the decision in the case of M/s. Ranbaxy Laboratories.Issue 3: Applicability of interest on delayed sanction of refundThe appellant contended that they were entitled to interest on delayed sanction of the refund after three months from the date of filing the refund application. Citing the judgment in the case of M/s. Ranbaxy Laboratories, the Tribunal agreed with the appellant's argument and granted the appellant interest on the delayed refund.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and granting the appellant relief on all issues raised, including the limitation of the refund claim, entitlement to refund of accumulated cenvat credit, and the applicability of interest on delayed sanction of the refund.