TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (10) TMI 108
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of duty, under bond. On 29-4-05, they claimed refund of Rs. 1,17,296/- being Cenvat credit relatable to the machinery exported under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules (CCR), 2004. The appellants had filed the refund claim on the basis that they were not in a position to utilize the above Cenvat credit. 2. The appellant had opted to avail SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/03-C.E., dated 1-3-03 from 1-4-05. In terms of Rule 11 of CCR, a manufacturer who opted for exemption under notification based on the value or quantity of clearances in a financial year was required to reverse Cenvat credit relatable to inputs in stock as well as inputs contained in work in progress on the date of exercising the option. The balance credit after reversin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st goods exported, during the quarter or month to which the claim related. As the exports had taken place on 9, 15 and 30 March 05, the appellant could claim refund validly on any date in April, 2005. It had filed the claim on 29-4-05. 4. The appellants had opted for the SSI exemption as per notification No. 8/03 (supra) from 1-4-05. Balance credit available as on 1-4-05 only lapsed. As the appellants had sufficient credit balance on 31-3-05, which it was not in a position to utilize in March, 2005, it had claimed refund of the same as per the procedure prescribed, on 29-4-05. The claim had to be allowed in terms of provisions contained in Rule 5 of CCR and Notification No. 11/02-C.E. (N.T.) issued under Rule 5 of CCR. 5. The ld. Cons....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id the taxes would continue until the facility available thereto got worked out or until those goods existed. Following the above ratio, the Apex Court held in Samtel India Ltd., (supra) that sub-rule (17) could not apply to vested rights. To the extent that the goods had already been exported prior to March, 1997, the assessee would be entitled to a refund. 6. The ld. Consultant also relies on a decision of this Tribunal in Chandra Cotton Fabrics v. CCE, Coimbatore reported in 2008 (226) E.L.T. 731 (Tribunal) = 2008 (86) RLT 563 (CESTAT-Chen.) where rejection of a claim for refund under Rule 5 of CCR read with Notification No. 11 /2002-C.E. (N.T.) was overruled. The appellants therein could have exported goods on payment of duty under c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ties cited by the ld. Consultant for the appellants are to the effect that the assessee could not be deprived of its vested right to claim refund of duty paid on inputs even consequent to a change in law. In the instant case, the appellants filed a refund claim properly following the procedure prescribed. It had surplus credit accumulated on account of the exports in the month of March, 2005. The statutory procedure allowed the assessee to claim refund of such credit any time in April, 2005. The claim was filed on 29-4-2005. One of the grounds taken to reject the claim is that it could have exported goods on payment of duty utilizing credit and therefore, it could not be held that it was not possible for the assessee to utilize the surplus ....