2016 (9) TMI 840

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er (Technical) Dr. Shri Prabhat Kumar and S.S. Dabas, Advocates for the appellant None for the Respondent ORDER Per. B. Ravichandran The appellant is aggrieved by order dated 28/12/2006 of Commissioner (Appeals), Bhopal. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of vegetable product liable to Central Excise duty. The appellants were availing ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rom the relevant date. On appeal, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) held that the Original Authority is correct in rejecting the claim as time barred. 2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal and various High Courts held that for claiming refund of unutilized Cenvat credit availed on inputs used in the goods exported under bond, the time limit will not apply. The fo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....asis. The said notification is in terms of sub-Rule (3) of Rule 57F of Central Excise Rules. The refund of credit was allowed to the inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products which are cleared for export under bond. Admittedly, the said notification has no application to the appellant s case. In such situation, we are not able to appreciate under which provision of law the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pporting legal provision. The learned Counsel relied on the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Union of India vs. Slovak India Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2006 (201) E.L.T. 559 (Kar.), the Hon'ble High Court held that Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rule, 2002 does not expressly prohibit refund of unutilized credit in the event of closure of factory. We find in the present case, the appella....