TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (8) TMI 314
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 54/2009-C.E. 86/2009 dt. 31-3-2009 July 07 to Sept. 07 Rs. 2,85,411/- 27-12-2007 2. The relevant facts, in b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellants 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 entire refund claims stand rejected by the original authority and the same stands upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). 3.2&em....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 capital goods in their claim for refunds. Regarding the time-bar he leaves the matter to be decided on merits. 5.1 I have carefully c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 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, the findings of the original authority that the three claims are hit by time-bar and the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding th....