2021 (8) TMI 79 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Upholds Rejection of Cenvat Credit Refund Claim Due to Time Limit Non-Compliance

Rangdhara Polymers Versus C.C.E. Ahmedabad-II

The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the appellant's refund claim for Cenvat Credit under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004, ruling that the one-year ... Refund of CENVAT Credit - Relevant Date - Time limitation - refund claim rejected on the ground of amended Notification 5/2006-CE(NT) application of provision of section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 was inserted and applicability of Rule 5 of CCR - whether the refund under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 shall be governed by Provision of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944? HELD THAT:- From para 6 of N/N. 5/2006-CE (NT), it is clear that refund under Rule 5 must be filed before expiry of period specified in section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as there is specific mention. From the definition of ‘relevant date’, it can be seen that sub clause (a) of Clause (B) of definition of relevant date clearly covers the refund of duty paid in respect of the excisable material used in the manufacture of export goods. In the present case, the refund under Rule 5 is also in respect of the duty paid on the material used in the manufacture of export goods. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is no mention about the relevant date in respect of refund of the nature in the present case. This Tribunal in M/S. SPECTRAMIX PLASTICS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & ST., VAPI [2014 (5) TMI 682 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] clearly made observation that refund claim in terms of Notification No. 5/2006-CE (NT) issued under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is subject to one year time bar as prescribed under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. The refund of the appellant is correctly rejected on time bar as the same was not filed within the stipulated period of one year - Appeal dismissed. Issues Involved:Whether time limit under Section 11B applies to refund of Cenvat Credit under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 for the period April 2008 to June 2008.Analysis:The appellant argued that Section 11B does not specify the relevant date for refunds under Rule 5, hence the one-year time limit should not apply. They cited various judgments to support their claim. On the contrary, the revenue contended that the refund must be claimed before the expiry of the period specified in Section 11B as per Notification No. 5/2006-CE (NT). They also relied on specific judgments to strengthen their argument.The Tribunal examined whether the refund under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 is governed by Section 11B. The relevant provision in Notification No. 5/2006-CE (NT) mandates filing before the expiry of the period specified in Section 11B. The Tribunal noted that the definition of 'relevant date' in Section 11B includes refunds for excisable materials used in export goods, which aligns with the present case. The Tribunal referred to the judgment in Suretax Prophyplastics vs. CCE and highlighted the importance of complying with notifications issued under Rule 5.The Tribunal emphasized that the refund claim under Rule 5, related to export goods, is subject to the one-year time bar prescribed in Section 11B. Previous judgments, such as Spectramix Plastics vs. CCE, supported this view. The Tribunal also differentiated the appellant's reliance on their own case, stating that the judgments cited were not directly applicable to the present scenario. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claim as time-barred due to non-compliance with the one-year stipulated period.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the rejection of the refund claim based on the time limitation set forth in Section 11B. The judgment was pronounced on 30.07.2021.