2014 (5) TMI 682

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rief facts of the case are that the appellant filed two refund claims of Rs. 4,74,415/- and Rs. 14,89,063/- on 22.03.2011 under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 due to accumulation of CENVAT Credit to this extent on account of export of goods under Letter of Undertaking (LUT) during the quarters from April to June, 2009 and July to September, 2009, which were rejected by the original adjudicating authority vide two separate Orders-in-Original on the ground that the appellant had not supplied certain documents and details to verify appellant's eligibility to the refund claims, and also on the ground of time bar under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. Shri Willingdon C., Ld. Advocate for the appellants, argued that the a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nue to ascertain appellant's eligibility to refund claim under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, and the second ground is on the point of limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and incorporated in Para 6 of Notification No. 5/ 2006-C.E. (NT). 6. On the issue of time-bar nature of the refund, it is the case of the appellant that limitation provided as per notification issued under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, not applicable to the refund claims filed under Rule 5 of these Rules.  The judgments relied upon by the appellant are mainly based upon the judgment of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of STI India Limited vs. Commissioner - [2009 (236) ELT 248 (M.P.)] and the said ju....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e 5. With great respect, we are not in agreement with the said judgment as the judgment was rendered based on the rules and the notification which are procedural in nature. As we have found that but for the provision of Rule 5 r/w notification, the respondent could not have filed the application for refund, he has to satisfy the limitation clause as provided under Section 11B of the Act.            18. In view of the above, the order of CESTAT holding that the limitation is not applicable to the facts in question to the case has to be set aside. Accordingly the same is set aside. 6.1 In view of the interpretation made by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, specifically with respect to th....