TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (6) TMI 353
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellants are engaged in the manufacture MM Yarn and are registered with the Department for payment of Central Excise duty. They are availing credit of duty paid on Polyester/Viscose/Acrylic Fibers used by them as inputs. Both inputs and their final products were chargeable to AED [T&TA] till 08/7/2004, however, both were exempted w.e.f. 09/7/2004 for AED [T&TA]. On the date of exemption they had credit balance of AED [T&TA] of Rs. 27,25,433/- availed on inputs. Out of this amount, they have utilized Rs. 1,22,234/- for payment of AED [T&TA] liable during period 01/7/2004 to 08/7/2004. In March 2005 they are filed three rebate claims on the duty amounts [BED, AED [T&TA] and E. Cess]. These rebate claims were rejected by the Original Au....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated 12/3/2003 is relied upon ; (b) The Tribunal in the case of CCE, Rohtak vs. Indo Dane Textile Industries reported in 2007 (213) E.L.T. 117 (Tri. - Del.) held that refund for AED [T&TA] was admissible to the Assessee as the rebate claim under Rule 18 will not bar such claim. The decision was upheld by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court reported in 2012 (275) E.L.T. 189 (P&H). Reliance was also placed on Tribunal decision in STL Products (P) Ltd. vs. CCE, Bangalore reported in 2006 (198) E.L.T. 521 (Tri. - Bang.) ; (c) The refund claim under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules is not governed by the time limit prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. There is no "relevant date" prescribed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....GTN Engineering (India) Ltd. reported in 2012 (281) E.L.T. 185 (Mad.) has to be followed. The claim in the present case is squarely hit by the time limit. 5. Heard both the sides and examined the appeal records. The admitted facts of the case are that the appellants were availing Cenvat credit on AED [T&TA] paid on inputs which are used in the manufacture of final products which also had duty liability under the head AED [T&TA]. However, w.e.f. 09/7/2004 both inputs and final products were exempted from payment of AED [T&TA]. It is also an admitted fact that the appellants were exporting the final products. Initially they have exported under claim for rebate. The said rebate claims were subjected to proceedings. Originally rejected by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. If the final product is not chargeable to AED, it cannot be said that the final product is exempted from basic excise duty. Further, the condition relating to the restriction on the utilization of such credit lays down that the credit taken of AED [T&TA] can be utilized only for the payment of AED [T&TA]. It is, therefore, observed that as per Rule 3 of the said rules, Cenvat credit of AED [T&TA] can be taken even though the manner of utilization of such credit is restricted in terms of sub-rule (7). Therefore, such unutilized accumulated credit of AED [T&TA] can be claimed as refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on export of goods. Accordingly, it is clarified that clarification issu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....prescribed under Section 11B for the claim made under Rule 5. The admitted fact is that the relevant date as defined under Section 11B does not cover the scope of the claim under Rule 5. It is by interpretation and reading together the various provisions the decisions were arrived in the case laws relied upon by both Revenue and the appellant. 9. The facts of the present case are to be examined first to apply the ratio of decided cases. The appellant originally claimed rebate which was rejected and after the withdrawal of writ-petition filed in Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, the appellant re-credited the debited account in their Cenvat account. This has been approved by the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner. Out of such re-credit....