2020 (9) TMI 788 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal remands refund claim for re-examination under Cenvat Credit Rules

M/s. Sopariwala Exports Pvt Ltd Versus C.C.E. & S.T. -Vadodara-i

M/s. Sopariwala Exports Pvt Ltd Versus C.C.E. & S.T. -Vadodara-i - TMI Issues:1. Refusal of refund claims by original Adjudicating Authority.2. Denial of refund claims on the ground of being barred by limitation under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.3. Rejection of refund claims within the period of limitation.4. Inbuilt mechanism of re-credit under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.5. Reversal of Cenvat Credit before the adjudication of refund claims.6. Rejection of part of the refund on the ground of goods supplied to 100% EOU.7. Applicability of limitation prescribed under Section 11B to refund claims filed under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules.8. Admissibility of refund in case of clearance from DTA to 100% EOU.9. Entitlement to re-credit of Cenvat Credit reversed at the time of filing refund claims.Detailed Analysis:1. The appeals were filed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) remanding the matter back to the original Adjudicating Authority, which had rejected the refund claims. The tribunal upheld the limitation but remanded the matter to examine claims within the limitation period.2. The appellant argued that the lower authorities did not properly examine the issue and rejected claims within the limitation period. They pointed out the inbuilt mechanism of re-credit under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and referred to relevant case laws supporting their argument.3. The appellant further argued that the reversal of Cenvat Credit was done before the adjudication of refund claims, and belated reversal of credit was considered compliant for refund purposes in previous tribunal decisions.4. Part of the refund was rejected on the grounds of goods supplied to 100% EOU, citing a relevant case law that deemed export credit cannot be denied under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules.5. The tribunal considered the limitation issue settled against the appellant based on a judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court and analyzed the claims filed within and beyond the limitation period, remanding specific appeals for further determination.6. The tribunal observed that the appellants were entitled to refund for exports made within the limitation period, based on previous tribunal decisions and the amended definition of export goods.7. Regarding other appeals, the tribunal discussed the entitlement to re-credit of Cenvat Credit reversed at the time of filing refund claims, which were later rejected by the revenue, concluding that the credit reversed becomes admissible for re-credit in such circumstances.8. The appeals were partly allowed based on the findings and arguments presented, with a decision pronounced in the open court on a specified date.