TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appellant Wins Refund Claim Under Rule 5 Cenvat Credit Rules; Court Overrules Late Filing Rejection Based on Tribunal Precedents.</h1> <h3>Alltech Technocast Pvt Ltd. Versus C.C.E & S.T. – Rajkot</h3> The court ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the refund claims under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Despite the initial rejection due to ... Refund of utilization Cenvat Credit on account of clearance to 100% EOU without any payment of duty - rejection of refund on the ground that the same were filed after expiry of one year, i.e. time limit prescribed under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT:- Reliance placed on the decision of M/s Kumaraswamy Mineral Exports vs CCE & ST – Belgaum [2019 (2) TMI 1378 - CESTAT BANGALORE] in which the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in GTN Engineering Industries [2011 (8) TMI 960 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] was also considered and same was distinguished in view of specific relevant date having been given in the Notification itself which aspect, the Hon’ble Bench considered was not taken into consideration by Hon’ble Madras High Court. In view of the stated position and the case of GTN Engineering, having been distinguished the party becomes entitled to the refund on the basis of cited decisions of Tribunal. Same is therefore, allowed, as per law. Appeals are allowed. The case involves two refund claims under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, for periods in 2014. The claims were rejected due to being filed after the one-year time limit under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant argued citing a decision in M/s USV Ltd. vs C.C.E. & S.T. Daman, supporting refund claims filed within one year of the quarter end. The respondent relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court, emphasizing the application of Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 in determining the one-year period under Section 11B. The appellant distinguished this decision with reference to a case in M/s Kumaraswamy Mineral Exports vs CCE & ST - Belgaum, where specific relevant dates in a notification were considered. The court, considering these arguments, allowed the refund claims based on the cited tribunal decisions, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
