TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 580
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er Additional Duty of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 [hereinafter referred to as AED (GSI)], the final product -tyre attracts only the basic excise duty and Special Excise Duty and there is no AED (GSI) on the tyres . The period of dispute in this case is from August, 1997 to March, 2000. During this period, the appellant had taken CENVAT Credit of Basic Excise Duty and AED (GSI) paid in respect of nylon tyre cord fabrics. However, since during period prior to 1/4/2000, AED (GSI) credit could be utilized only for payment of AED (GSI) on the final product and could not be utilized for payment of Basic Excise Duty or Special Excise Duty, the appellant had accumulated AED (GSI) credit in their CENVAT Credit account. During this....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....redit Rules, 2002 in March, 2003 and by this amendment, the utilization of AED (GSI) credit for payment of Basic Excise Duty or Special Excise Duty on the final product was allowed. The appellant at that time had huge accumulated AED (GSI) credit, out of which the credit of Rs . 8,71,12,812/-pertained to the period prior to 1/4/2000. During March 2003 and April, 2003, the entire AED (GSI) credit, including AED (GSI) credit pertaining to the period prior to 1/4/2000, was utilized for payment of Basic Excise Duty and Special Excise Duty on the final product. In view of this, the appellant made applications before the Tribunal for withdrawal of the appeals filed against Commissioner (appeal's) order dated 31/12/2012 and the same were allow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....od prior to 1/4/2000 which had accrued in respect of the inputs used in the manufacture of the tyres under bond without payment of duty. These refund claims were rejected by the Assistant Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dated 4/2/2009. The refund claims were rejected on the ground that the appellants have already utilized this credit for payment of duty on the final product cleared for home consumption. This order of the Assistant Commissioner was upheld by the Commissioner (appeals) vide order-in-appeal dated 30/03/2010 against which this appeal has been filed. 3. Heard both sides. 4. Sh. B.L . Narsimhan , Advocate, ld. Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that though during the period of dispute, there was no AED (GSI) on the final pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wrong and in view of this order of the Tribunal, the appellant would be required to reverse the balance amount of the credit of Rs . 21,38,512/-also, the cash refund of Rs . 18,90,389/-under Rule 57F (13) of Central Excise Act, 1944 should not be denied as this cash refund is admissible to them in terms of the Board's Circular dated 12/3/2003. He also pleaded that there is no question of limitation, as while the notification no. 85/ 87CE mentions that the claims are to be filed within the period specified in section 11B , neither this notification nor section 11B defines the "relevant date" for the purpose of such cash refunds of the accumulated CENVAT Credit under Rule 57F (3) of Central Excise Rules, 1944/Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red for export and if any other conclusion is arrived it will result in disentitling any person to claim of refund of CENVAT Credit. 6. We have considered the submission from both the sides and perused the records. The refund claims under Rule 57F (13) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with notification no. 85/87 pertain to the period prior to 1/4/2000 and these refund claims are of the accumulated AED (GSI) credit in respect of the inputs which had been used in the manufacture of tyres exported under bond without payment of duty. There is no dispute that though during that period, there was no AED (GSI) on the tyres , the appellant in view of the Board's Circular dated 12/3/2003 would be eligible for cash refund of the AED (GSI) cred....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tation, according to the Department a part of the claim is time barred. However, on this point, we find that Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of STI India Limited Vs. CCE -Indore reported in 2009 (236) ELT 248 (MP) has held that strict law of limitation provided in section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 would not apply to the refund claim pursuant to the notification issued under Rule 57F . This judgment of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court had BEEN followed by this Tribunal in the case of Deepak Spinners Limited Vs. CCE -Indore reported in 302 (ELT) 132 . Moreover, while the notification no. 85/97 CE(NT) provides that the claim for cash refund under Rule 57F (13) is to be filed within the limitation period prescri....