2022 (9) TMI 389

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....od from 01.04.2012 to 05.06.2012 and therefore, the show cause notice F. No. V/18-08/13-14/R dated 31.12.2003 was issued to the appellant and after following the process of natural justice the said claim was rejected vide the order in original as time barred in view of provisions of Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. Being aggrieved with the above order in original, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide impugned order dated 31.10.2018 rejected the appeal. Therefore, the present appeal filed by the appellant. 2. Mrs. Nisha Bineesh, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that in this case no time limit is prescribed under Rule 5 of Cenvat credit Rules, 2004 for filing refund and time limit prescribed under Section 11B of Central Excise Act 1944, is not applicable. She placed reliance on the following judgments: • Tata Motors Ltd vs. CCE, - 2012 (284) ELT 583 (Tri-Kol), • Amdocs Business Services Pvt. LTD vs. CC.Ex., - 2013 (31) S.T.R 496 (Tri-Bang). • Quality BPO Services Pvt. Ltd vs. CST, - 2015 (39) S.T.R. 230 9 (Tri- Ahmd). â....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... refund claim can be filed at the end of each quarter without time bar. Accordingly, relevant date under Section 11B (5) (b) (a) (i) of Central Excise Act, 1944, has no applicable in such cases. 3. Shri G. Kirupanandan, Learned Superintendent (Authorized Representative) appearing on behalf of the revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. He submits that there is an explicit provision under Notification No. 27/2012- CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012 under para 3(b) that refund claim under this Notification shall be filed by the claimant before the expiry of the period specified in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore, the time limit in terms of Section 11B is mandatory even for the refund under Rule 5 of Cenvat credit Rules, 2004. He placed reliance on the following judgments: • Rangdhara Polymers vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Ahmedabad-ll- 2022 (379) ELT 382 (Tri. -Ahmd.) • Commissioner of C.Ex., Coimbatore Vs. Engineering (i) Ltd.- 2012 (281) ELT 185 (Mad) • Banswara Syntex Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Jaipur-ll-2017 (345) ELT 547 (Tri-Del.) • Eagle Flask Industries Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Pune-....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t remained unutilized. Hence, appellant sought for refund of this unutilized input credit under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 by submitting 16 refund claims. Said applications came to be rejected as not having been filed within the limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. While answering substantial questions of law (1), (3) & (4) hereinabove, we have already held that provisions of Section 11B of Central Excise Act would be applicable though Section 11B of the Act does not cover refund of Cenvat credit, Notification No. 5/2006 makes it explicitly clear that for the purpose of relevant date for computing one year prescribed under Section 11B, it has to be determined by applying Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, necessarily the refund claims ought to have been filed within one year from the relevant date as specified in Section 11B. In other words, time-limit has to be computed from the last date of the last month of the quarter which would be the relevant date for the purposes of examining if the claim is filed within the limitation prescribed under Section 11B or otherwise. The details of the refund claims insofar as it relates to 12 claims was o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nvat Credit Rules, 2004, mandate production of FIRCs as proof evidence of receipt of foreign convertible currency. Date of export would be an impractical deadline to compute the permissible period for seeking refund. Hence, the settled law relating to the date of issue of FIRCs being acceptable for compliance to the procedure laid down in Notification No. 27/2012-C.E. (N.T.). The restrictions imposed on filing of refund claim cannot be further restricted by computing the deadline from the date of issue of FIRCs. Accordingly, there is no flaw in the findings of the first appellate authority that last date of quarter in which the FIRCs were issued should be the relevant date for computing the period within which the refund should be sought." • John Kells BPO Solutions India P. Ltd vs. Commissioner of C. Ex (S.C) Gurgaon- 2016 43 STR 473 (Tri-Chandigarh). "6. On careful consideration of the submissions both the sides, I find that under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the refund claim is required to filed once in a quarter i.e. during the pendency to the quarterly if export has been completed, in that case also refund claims required to filed within one y....