AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 321
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ared the entire production to SEZ, and there were no clearances made to DTA. As such there was accumulated CENVAT Credit of duty paid on the inputs to a tune of Rs. 15,04,515/-. The appellants filed refund claim on 30.06.2010 for the quarter (i.e., April 2009 to March 2009) for an amount of Rs. 6,07,121/- and later after verification of records by their Chartered Accountant filed an amendment to the refund claim with amended amount of Rs. 15,04,515/-. 3. A Show Cause Notice dated 28.09.2010 was issued, interalia proposing to reject the refund claim on the ground of time bar. After due process of law, the adjudicating authority rejected the claim being time barred. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same. 4. In E/2851/201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 07.05.2009 54 days delay 03/27.05.2009 (April to June 2009) 01.06.2009 29 days delay 04/05.06.2009 (April to June 2009) 08.07.2009 Within time 05/07.06.2009 (April to June 2009) 15.06.2009 15 days delay 06/13.06.2009 (April to June 2009) 19.06.2009 11 days delay 07/18.06.2009 (April to June 2009) 22.06.2009 8 days delay 08/30.06.2009 (April to June 2009) 08.07.2009 Within time 6. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions are noticed as under: Rule 5.Refund of CENVAT credit: Where any input or input service is used in the manufacture of final product which is cleared for export under bond or letter of undertaking, as the case may be, or used ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T) dated 14.03.2006. "6. The application in Form A, along with the prescribed enclosures and the relevant extracts of the records maintained under the Central Excise Rules, 2002, CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, or the Service Tax Rules, 1994, in original are filed 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 (1 of 1944)". 7. The issue for consideration is whether the refund is hit by time bar. As seen from Rule 5 noticed above, the said Rule does not specify any time limit; but lays down that refund is subject to such safeguards, conditions, and limitations notified by the Central Go....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fund claim filed beyond the period of one year from the relevant date is time barred. 10. The question then arises what is the relevant date. The appellant submits that refund in respect of few of the exports is within time if calculated on the basis of the finding in the impugned order regarding the issue of relevant date. In the Impugned Order, the first appellate authority has observed that the date on which the goods enter the SEZ should be taken as relevant date for the purposes computing the limitation. The appellant has put forward in table II (shown above) that refund claim with regard to few of the exports would be within time if the period of limitation is computed taking the relevant date as the date on which goods entered SEZ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the said decision will not assist the appellant, the facts being different. In the said case the claim was made on account of closure of unit. Whereas, in the present case it is not. Even in the Show Cause Notice or in reply such allegation/contention was not raised. During the hearing of the appeal, the appellant cannot put forward an entire new contention to claim the refund. 12. Further, the issue whether the factory is closed down, the reasons for closing down, the dues and liabilities if any, etc., has to be verified by the department when the assessee/appellant puts forward a refund claim for the reason of closure of unit. At the fag end of the case, the appellant cannot contend that the unit is closed down and that therefore....