2018 (3) TMI 1374

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....facture of 'Isabgol', falling under Chapter sub-heading 1211 9013 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. For the period 01.10.2006 to 31.03.2008, the appellant had filed the refund claim under Rule 5 of the Rules, claiming refund of service tax paid on the taxable services. The said refund applications were initially filed on 30.07.2008 under Notification No.41/2007-ST dated 6.10.2007, and after its return by the Department, the same were re-submitted on 24.07.2009 under Rule 5 of the Rules. However, the refund applications were rejected on the ground that the same were filed beyond the period of one year from the date of export and accordingly, the same is not maintainable under Section 11 B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. The ld. Co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....envat credit under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Rules, the Tribunal in the case of JCT Ltd. (supra) has held that the refund application cannot be rejected in terms of Section 11B of the Act. The relevant paragraph in the said decision is extracted herein below:- "6. Coming to the question of limitation, which is in respect of the claim for April, 2002 to June, 2002 period, Notification No.11/2002-C.E. (N.T.), dated 13-2002 issued under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 provides that the application in the prescribed form for cash refund of the accumulated credit, which the manufacturer cannot use for payment of duty on the clearances for home consumption, must be submitted to jurisdictional Dy./Asstt. Commissioner "before the expiry of the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of export by post, this provision cannot be applied to the case of cash refund of accumulated Cenvat credit under Rule 5, as the claim is linked not only with accumulation of Cenvat credit in respect of the inputs used in the manufacture of goods cleared for export under bond, the same is also linked with the manufacturer's inability to utilise this credit for payment of duty on the clearances for home consumption. For this reason only, the Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Motors Ltd. (supra) has held that in respect of cash refund of accumulated credit filed under Rule 57F(4), the limitation period prescribed in Section 11B is not applicable. Same view has been taken by the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of STI Ltd. (su....