TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 998
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e respondents filed refund claim. The refund claim was rejected on account of limitation as in respect of the period April, 2003 to June, 2004, the refund claim was filed on 20.10.2007. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and allowed the appeal filed by the respondents. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal. 2. Learned AR for the Revenue relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in case of GTN Engineering (I) Ltd. 2012 (281) ELT 185 (Mad). In the said decision, while interpreting similar provisions under Notification No. 5/2006-CE (NT) has observed as f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he final products are cleared for export. If any other conclusion is arrived, it will result in disentitling any person to make a claim of refund of CENVAT credit. Admittedly, the respondent has made a claim only invoking Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. In that view of the matter, there cannot be any difficulty for us to hold that the relevant date should be the date on which the export of the goods was made and for such goods, refund of CENVAT credit is claimed. He also relied on the decision of the Tribunal in case of Affinity Express India Pvt. Ltd. 2015 (37) STR 321 (Tri-Mum) passed by a Single Member, where the Tribunal has relied on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of GTN Engg. (supra) and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ditions and limitations. Clause 6 of this notification provides that The application in Form A along with the proof of due exportation and the relevant extracts of the records maintained under the said rules or the deemed credit register maintained in respect of textile fabrics, as the case may be, in original, are lodged with the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise or the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, before the expiry of the period specified in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 . Earlier in Rule 57F of Central Excise Rules, 1944 also, there was an identical provision and in terms of Rule 57F, a similar notification had been issued which also had a similar provision providing that all the claims ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... what was required to be seen by the authorities was whether appellant had submitted along with application all necessary proof regarding exportation of goods and relevant extracts of form R.G. 23A or deemed credit register maintained in respect of textile fabrics in original as the case may be as provided in Clause 6 of Appendix to notification issued under Rule 57F. Once the appellant (Assessee) was able to satisfy these requirements to the satisfaction of authority concern then they were entitled to claim the refund of duty paid on inputs. 7. In my view the judgment of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh? High Court is squarely applicable to this case, more so when the appellant falls within the jurisdiction of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hes in identical situation, in the case of Deepak Spinners Ltd. vs. CCE, Indore, Elcomponics Sales Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Noida and Global Energy Food Industries vs. CCE, Ahmedabad (supra), I hold that no time limit will apply for refund claim under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. Further, prior to date of crystallization of right to refund, no limitation can start running." 4. I have gone through the rival submissions. Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 prescribes the relevant date for the purpose of calculating the period of limitation. The relevant date has been defined in Explanation B as under: - (B) "relevant date" means, - (a) in the case of goods exported out of India where a refund of excise duty paid is available ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of purchase of the goods by such person; (ea) in the case of goods which are exempt from payment of duty by a special order issued under sub-section (2) of section 5A, the date of issue of such order; (eb) in case where duty of excise is paid provisionally under this Act or the rules made there under, the date of adjustment of duty after the final assessment thereof; (ec) in case where the duty becomes refundable as a consequence of judgment, decree, order or direction of appellate authority, Appellate Tribunal or any court, the date of such judgment, decree, order or direction; (f) in any other case, the date of payment of duty." It is seen that neither the appeal filed by the Revenue nor the learned AR was able to point out....