Appellant's Cenvat Credit refund claim upheld for timely filing under Central Excise Act.

The appellant's refund claim under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was contested due to the limitation of one year as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant's claim for October-December 2016 was deemed time-barred and rejected, while the claim for January-March 2017 was within the time limit and allowed. The decision was based on the calculation of the one-year period from the end of the quarter for which the refund is sought. Precedents such as CCE VS. M/s. Etisalat Software Solution Pvt Ltd. and CCE Vs. Prodair Air Products India Pvt Ltd. supported the outcome.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether the appellant's refund claim under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is time-barred by the limitation of one year as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The appellant had filed refund claims for the quarters October-December 2016 and January-March 2017. The department rejected the refund claim stating that it was time-barred as per Notification No.14/2016-CE (N.T.), requiring the claim to be filed within one year from the date of export invoice or realization of foreign exchange proceeds. The appellant filed the first refund claim on 05.01.2018 and the second on 27.03.2018. The department contended that both claims were beyond the one-year limit.

The Authorized Representative for the revenue highlighted the specific limitation provision under Notification No. 14/2016-CE (N.T.), emphasizing that the claims should be filed within one year from the export invoice date or payment realization date. As both claims were filed after one year, the rejection was justified.

Upon review, the Hon'ble Member (Judicial) observed that the appellant filed the October-December 2016 claim on 05.01.2018, exceeding the one-year period. However, the January-March 2017 claim was filed within one year from the end of the quarter. Referring to the Notification, the one-year period should be calculated from the end of the quarter for which the refund is sought. The appellant's claim for October-December 2016 amounting to Rs. 1,25,449/- was deemed time-barred and rejected. In contrast, the claim for January-March 2017 of Rs. 1,45,736/- was within the time limit and allowed.

The decision was supported by precedents, citing cases such as CCE VS. M/s. Etisalat Software Solution Pvt Ltd. and CCE Vs. Prodair Air Products India Pvt Ltd. The appeal was partly allowed, granting the refund for the January-March 2017 quarter while upholding the rejection for the October-December 2016 quarter.

---