2022 (9) TMI 389 - AT - Central Excise

Appellant's Timely CENVAT Credit Refund Claim Upheld

Usv Ltd Versus C.C.E. & S.T. -Daman

The Tribunal held that the appellant's refund claim for unutilized CENVAT credit on exports during April to June 2012 was not time-barred under Rule 5 of ... Refund of Cenvat credit remained to be utilized on account of exports of excisable goods under bond - time limitation - refund is time barred for the period from 01.04.2012 to 05.06.2012 or not - Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT:- In terms of Rule 5 read with Notification No. 27/2012- CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012, an assessee is required to file one claim for each quarter that is at the end of the quarter. The time limit prescribed under Section 11B is clearly applicable in respect of the refund governed under Rule 5 of Cenvat credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 27/2012-CE. However, the condition provided for filing the refund is an asseessee has to file one refund claim at the end of the quarter for which refund is sought for. In the present case for the period April, 2012 to June, 2007, the refund claim has to be filed after completion of the quarter i.e in the month of July, 2012 - In this case admittedly the refund claim was filed on 05.06.2013. It is clearly established that the refund claim was filed within 1 year from the due date even if it is taken as 1st July, 2012. It can be seen that a consistent view has been taken by various benches that in respect of refund under Rule 5 wherein it is provided to file a refund claim for each quarter, the period of limitation shall be reckoned from the end of the quarter - In the present case the quarter ends on 30 June, 2012 from which the limitation prescribed under Section 11B expires on 30 June, 2013, whereas admittedly the refund claim for the quarter April, 2012 to June, 2012 was filed on 05.06.2013, which is well within the stipulated time limit of 1 year. Therefore, the refund in the instant case is clearly not time bar. Both the Lower Authorities have erred in holding that the refund claim of the appellant is time bar. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:- Whether the refund claim filed by the appellant is time-barred under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.Analysis:1. The appellant, a manufacturer of medicaments, filed a refund claim for unutilized CENVAT credit on exports during April 2012 to June 2012. The claim was rejected as time-barred by the adjudicating authority citing Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.2. The appellant argued that Rule 5 does not specify a time limit for filing refunds and relied on various judgments supporting their contention. They emphasized that even if a limitation applies, it is procedural and should not hinder substantive relief, citing relevant case laws.3. The revenue contended that the time limit under Section 11B is mandatory for refund claims under Rule 5. They supported their argument with judgments emphasizing the importance of adhering to the time limit specified in Section 11B.4. The Tribunal analyzed the case and found that the issue to be decided was whether the refund claim was time-barred. They noted that Rule 5 requires one claim per quarter, with the application filed before the expiry of the period specified in Section 11B. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's claim, filed on 05.06.2013 for the quarter ending June 2012, was within the one-year time limit as per Section 11B, thus not time-barred.5. The Tribunal referred to several precedents where it was established that the relevant date for computing the time limit for refund claims under Rule 5 is the end of the quarter. As the appellant's claim was filed within one year from the end of the relevant quarter, the Tribunal held that the claim was not time-barred. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the arguments presented by both parties, the legal principles involved, and the Tribunal's reasoning in determining that the appellant's refund claim was not time-barred.