2019 (5) TMI 211

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of limitation. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are manufacturers of Automobile Seat Cover falling under Chapter 87. They are exporting over 87% of their products manufactured by them. Consequently they had accumulated cenvat credit which they are not in a position to use due to their major turnover being exported. Appellants had filed a consolidated claim for refund of Rs. 1,03,10,908/- (Rupees One Crore Three Lakhs Ten Thousand Nine Hundred and Eight only) being the excise duty involved on inputs used in the manufacture of Automobile Seat Covers exported during the period from 26.11.2012 to 31.03.2014 under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Assistant Commissioner returned the said claim to the appe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he goods exported by them and on which the refund of the accumulated cenvat credit is claimed in terms of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 but the Commissioner (Appeals) did not give any finding on limitation and remanded the case to the adjudicating authority to decide the refund application within a month of the receipt of the order after verifying the question of limitation and other conditions of the refund claim. Aggrieved by the said order appellant had filed the present appeal but in the meantime the original authority as per the direction of the Commissioner has passed the Order-in-Original dated 04.04.2018 and sanctioned an amount of Rs. 45,07,998/- (Rupees Forty Five Lakhs Seven Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety Eight only) o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ould be considered for the purpose of reckoning the limitation and not the date of submission of rectified claim as per the finding of the adjudicating authority. In support of this submission, he relied upon the following decisions: a. M/s. Kumaraswamy Mineral Exports Vs. CC, CE & ST, Belgaum - 2019 (2) TMI 1378 - CESTAT Bangalore b. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolhapur Vs. Swash Nonionics Pvt. Ltd. - 2018 (6) TMI 315 - CESTAT Mumbai c. Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-l Vs. M/s. Max Prints - 2018 (4) TMI 653 - CESTAT Mumbai d. M/s. Aircheck India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCGST, Mumbai West - 2019 (2) TMI 879 - CESTAT Mumbai e. Commissioner of C. Ex., Delhi-l Vs. Arya Exports and Industries - 2005....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... res-integra as the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Arya Exports and Industries (2005 (4) TMI 90 - High Court of Delhi) has decided the issue and held that date of filing claim should be considered as relevant date even if the same is not filed in prescribed form and the documents are not submitted along with the refund application. The initial refund claim having been filed well within time, the same is required to be considered within limitation. Accordingly I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits. - Decided in favour of assessee." 5.1. Further I find that this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Kumaraswamy Mineral Exports cited supra has held that the date of filing the r....