TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 389
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... USV/CEX/Refund/01/2013-14 under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification NO. 27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012, in respect of Cenvat credit remained to be utilized on account of exports of excisable goods under bond procedure during the period from April 2012 to June 2012. The adjudicating authority found that the refund claim amounting to Rs.1,44,84,747/- is time barred for the period 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2021 (55) G.S.T.L. 390 (Guj). * Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd vs. Commissioner Of Central Excise and Service Tax - 2022-TIOL-578-CESTAT-AHM). * Commissioner of C. E, Indore vs. K.S. Oils Ltd.- 2017 (52) S.T.R. 261 (Tri.-Del.) 2.1 She further submits that the provisions of Rule 57 F of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 is para materia with Rule 5 of Cenvat credit Rule 2004, and in respect of the said old rule the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of C. Ex. & Customs, Surat -I Vs. Swagat Synthetics 2008 (232) ELT 413 (Guj.) held that the time limit under Section 11B is not applicable. She further submits that even if the limitation is applicable, it is a procedural aspect. which shall not come in the way of s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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- 2004 (171) ELT. 296 (S.C). 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records. We find that in the present case the limited issue to be decided is that whether the refund claim under Rule 5 filed by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....escribed under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. This issue has been considered in the following judgments: * Suretex Prophylactics India P. Ltd. - 2020 (373) ELT 481 (Kar.) "13. In the instant case, the appellant has obtained registration under the provisions of Finance Act, 1994 in the category of service provider as "scientific and technical consultancy services". As the entire taxable services rendered by the appellant for exporting outside India and on account of appellant not having any domestic service tax liability, the input service credit availed by it on the taxable input services, received by it remained unutilized. Hence, appellant sought for refund of this unutilized input credit under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... end of the quarter" in which FIRC's are received as per the extant Notification No. 27/2012-C.E. (N.T.), dated 18-6-2012." * Poona Brush Company operative Ltd.-2018 363 ELT 678 (Tri-Mum.) "4. The claims for refund of Cenvat credit is covered by Notification No. 27/2012-C.E. (N.T.), dated 18th June, 2012. The said procedure, though referring to Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944, has not elaborated any further application of the 'relevant date'. It is now well-settled that, the claim for each quarter being restricted to one, the relevant date should be taken to be the last date of the quarter during which the exports have taken place. It is, therefore, apparent that the lower authorities have adopted an incorrect 'relevant date' t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 pend....