2019 (9) TMI 578 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal overturns rejection of refund claim, citing correct date for limitation period calculation.

Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd Versus Commissioner Of Central Tax, Mysuru Commissionerate

The Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal, setting aside the Commissioner (A)'s order rejecting the refund claim under Rule 6(3A) of CENVAT Credit ... Refund claim - relevant date - CENVAT Credit reversed in excess of what was required to be reversed - common inputs used for both dutiable and exempted goods - Rule 6(3A) of CCR, 2004 - HELD THAT:- Rule 6(3A), Clause (f) which is applicable in the present case, there is no time limit provided for claiming the credit. Further, the relevant date as provided in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act is also to be counted from the date of adjustment of duty after the final assessment which is specially provided in Clause (eb) of Section 11B. Further, in the present case, the final adjustment happens on 30.11.2017 and that is the relevant date for the purpose of reckoning the period of limitation as provided in Section 11B and if that date i.e., 30.11.2017 is taken, then the refund claim filed on 4.7.2018 is within the period of limitation. Both the authorities have wrongly interpreted the relevant date as provided in Section 11B as well as Rule 6(3A)(f) - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:Claim of refund under Rule 6(3A) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 rejected for being hit by limitation.Analysis:The appeal was against the Commissioner (A)'s order rejecting the appellant's refund claim under Rule 6(3A) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant, a sugar manufacturer, reversed credit provisionally for exempted goods but later found they had to reverse a higher amount. The refund claim was rejected as the final adjustment was done after the prescribed deadline of 30/06/2017, contravening Rule 6(3A)(c) of CCR. The appellant argued that the impugned order failed to appreciate CENVAT credit provisions and Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. They referred to Rule 6(3A) which outlines the credit reversal process. The appellant contended that Rule 6(3A)(f) does not specify a time limit for claiming credit when the provisional amount reversed exceeds the actual amount, and they were entitled to claim credit under this provision. They also invoked Section 174 read with Section 142(3) of CGST Act, 2017, to support their claim for refund after the introduction of GST.The appellant's counsel argued that the relevant date for the refund claim should be the date of final adjustment, i.e., 30.11.2017, as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. They asserted that the refund claim filed on 4.7.2018 was within the limitation period if the final adjustment date was considered as the relevant date. The AR defended the impugned order, but the Tribunal found that Rule 6(3A)(f) did not prescribe a time limit for claiming credit and that the relevant date for limitation under Section 11B should be the date of final duty adjustment, as specified in Clause (eb) of Section 11B. The Tribunal concluded that the authorities had misinterpreted the relevant date under Section 11B and Rule 6(3A)(f), setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appellant's appeal.In the judgment delivered by the Tribunal, it was clarified that the relevant date for calculating the limitation period for a refund claim under Rule 6(3A) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, should be the date of final duty adjustment, as specified in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal held that the authorities had erred in their interpretation of the relevant date and Rule 6(3A)(f), leading to the rejection of the refund claim. By setting aside the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal, emphasizing the correct understanding of the relevant date for limitation purposes in such cases.