TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 849
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d been filed after a lapse of one year after the date of which the goods have been exported. On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) vide its order dated 21.12.2015 upheld the order of lower authority. Appellant approached the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in W.P.No.18834/2016 & WMP No.16442/2016. The Hon'ble High Court in their order dt. 6.6.2016, while holding that the writ petition is not maintainable before the court at this juncture, liberty is granted opportunity to the petitioner to approach the Tribunal inter alia noted that the matter pertains to refund claim and the specific contention of the petitioner is that they have closed down the business activities. The Hon'ble High Court also observed as follows : "3. The learned counsel for th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the appellant, submitted that the refund claim was in fact filed only for accumulated credit owing to closure of the factory. However, as there was no procedure for claiming of such refund under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 or Finance Act, 1994, they filed the claim under Rule 5 of the Rules and Notification No.27/2012-CE (NT). He drew attention to the following chart in page-7 of the appeal : Date/Period Event July 2011 to September 2011 Export of finished goods and Inputs 01.06.2013 Date of reversal of credit 01.07.2013 Date of closure of factory 18.07.2013 Date of filing Application for refund. 3. Ld. Advocate submitted that due to unavoidable circumstances, the factory was closed on 1.7.2013 and as the appellant intended to av....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... also submits that CESTAT Chennai inter alia relying upon Slovak India Trading judgement (supra), and the decision of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Court in CCE & ST Hyderabad Vs Apex Drugs & Intermediates Ltd. - 2015 (322) ELT 834 (AP) has held that refund under Rule 5 of the Rules is admissible for accumulated credit on account of closure of factory, which decision was reported in 2016-TIOL-2199-CESTAT-MAD [Computer Graphics Ltd. Vs CCE Tirunelveli]. 4. On the other hand, Ld. A.R Shri L. Paneerselvam, AC, appearing for Revenue, vehemently opposed the appeal and submitted that whereas the export had been effected during the period July 2011 to September 2011, the refund application for accumulated credit thereof was filed only on 18.7.2013. That....