TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (9) TMI 788
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellant pointed out that they had filed various refund claims from time to time under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 in respect of accumulated credit on account of export of dutiable finished goods made under LUT/Bond in terms of Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The said refund was denied on the ground of being barred by limitation under section 11 B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.The said decision was challenged before the tribunal and tribunal had upheld the limitation but remanded the matter back to examine the claims which are within the limitation. 2.1 Learned counsel pointed out that the lower authorities have not examined the issue in proper perspective and rejected the claims even within the period of limitat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not reversed at the time of filing of refund claim, however, the said impugned order notices that the said amount was reversed before decision of refund was taken. He pointed out that the said argument therefore becomes invalid as the Cenvat Credit was reversed well before the refund claim was adjudicated. He further argued that the Order-In-Original No.69-72 refund/DIV/II/2014-15 dated 31.01.2015 also rejects the refund claim only on the ground of limitation and not on account of non-reversal of credit/Delayed reversal of credit at all. Learned counsel also attached the ER2 return for the month of January-2014 wherein at the end in the remark column there is a mention about the amount/period wise credit reversal for refund purposes. Learn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anctioned. He pointed out that in other six appeals since the refund has been held as time barred, re-credit of the amount reversed should be allowed to the appellant. 3. Learned Authorized Representative relied on the impugned order. Learned Authorized Representative also submitted written submissions on 4th March, 2020. He pointed out that only in Appeal No. E/13076/2018 the claim has been filed within the limitation of one year but the appellant has not reversed the Cenvat Credit as per the condition 2(h) of the Notification No. 27/2012 CE (NT) dated 18.6.2012. He pointed out that the appellants have claimed the benefit as per section 142(6) of CGST, 2017. He argued that this argument was not raised in the earlier proceedings before tri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....p'12 26.12.13 04.10.2013 6 E/13076/2018 Oct'12 to Dec'12 26.12.13 04.10.2013 7 E/13077/2018 April'13 to June'13 04.07.14 09.04.2014 8 E/13078/2018 March'11 to March'12 11.08.14 12.05.2014 4.1 Both the sides agree that Serial No.1,2,3,4,5 & 8 are beyond the limitation prescribed under Section 11B and therefore are barred by limitation while revenue is of the view that only Appeal No.E/13076/2018 is within the limitation of one year. The appellants are of the view that both Appeal No. E/13076/2018 & E/13077/2018 are within the limitation of one year. It is seen that the Appeal No. E/13076/2018 pertains to period October' 12 to Dec.'12 and the refund claim was filed on 04.10.2013. In appeal no. E/13077/2018 pertains to the pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ind that issue involved is whether the appellant is entitled for the refund under Rule 5 during the period April, 2015 to June, 2015. I have gone through Rule 5 amended by Notification No. 6/2015-C.E. (N.T.) dated 1.3.2015 according to which definition of "export goods" was amended and amended definition reads as under :" (1A) "export goods" means any goods which are to be taken out of India to a place outside India." As per the amended definition of export goods refund is only allowed in respect of export goods, which are taken outside India. Ld. Commissioner has relied upon the sanction order of appellant which is pertaining to the period prior to 1.3.2005 therefore same is not relevant to the fact of the present case. As regard the relia....