2010 (8) TMI 314

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2004 by different orders of the original authority details of which are as follows :- A. No. Order Sl. No. & Date Period for which refund claimed relates Amount of refund claimed under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 Date of receipt of the claim 49/2009-C.E. 78/2009 dt. 31-3-2009 April - 06 to June 06 Rs. 2,18,866/- 25-1-2008 50/2009-C.E. 79/2009 dt. 31-3-2009 July, 06 to Sept. 06 Rs. 2,82,366/- 25-1-2008 51/2009-C.E. 80/2009 dt. 31-3-2009 Oct. 06 to Dec. 06 Rs. 7,00,633/- 25-1-2008 52/2009-C.E. 84/2009 dt. 31-3-2009 Jan. 07 to March 07 Rs. 5,60,842/- 4-1-2008 53/2009-C.E. 85/2009 dt. 31-3-2009 April 07 to June 07 Rs. 5,08,510/- 27-12-2007 54/200....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mount of refunds claimed by them. He also held that all the six claims are time-barred. 3.1 Learned counsel for the appellants submits that they were not able to utilize the credit as they were a 100% EOU and during the relevant period exported the entire final products manufactured by them except small quantities of rejects and scrap. Since the documents relating to taking of credit of export were voluminous, all these documents were not produced before the original authority; and the verification done by the Range Superintendent was selective and therefore, the report submitted by the Range Superintendent does not portray the actual situation. As a result, inspite of exports having been made from April 2006 to September 2007, the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... prescribed in 2010, the procedure envisaging the manner of satisfying that the refund relates to credit of duty relatable to inputs used in the products which were exported are relevant. He submits that, from some of the Orders-in-Original, the appellants have claimed refund of credit based on documents which are relating to period after export. (The learned counsel contested the same and submitted that the above finding is due to selective verification done by the Range Superintendent). Learned SDR also submits that the refund is admissible only after the export is made. He also submits that the Notification permits only credit of duty paid on inputs and it is not clear whether the appellants have claimed any credit attributable to capita....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ment of duty. Section 11B clearly refers to refund of duty paid. The appellants are not claiming refund of any duty paid by them. They are claiming refund of CENVAT credit already taken by them which could not be utilized as they have accumulated due to exports as specifically provided under Rule 5. The issue whether the time-limit prescribed under Section 11B in respect of claim for refund of CENVAT credit under Rule 5 is applicable has been considered by the Tribunal in the case of Swagat Synthetics (supra) and it was held that credit lying in RG-23A account accumulated arising out of export is akin to credit in the PLA and the time-limit shall not apply. The said decision has been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat. Therefore, t....