SURETEX PROPHYLACTICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE CUSTOMS & SERVICE TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CEA No.31/2017 came to be admitted on 08.08.2018. However, CEA Nos.32/2017 and 33/2017 were ordered to be posted along with CEA No.31/2017 since substantial questions of law had not been formulated.

(2.) We have heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and formulated following substantial questions of law on 26.02.2020, which reads:

(3.) Appellant is engaged in the manufacture and export of rubber contraceptives falling under Chapter Heading 40141010 of Central Excise Tariff Act (CETA), 1985 and it is a 100% Export Oriented Unit holding Private Bonded Warehousing Licence. Appellant is availing CENVAT credit facility under CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR), 2004 (hereinafter referred to as 'CENVAT Rules'). Appellant filed three (3) refund claims under Rule 5 of CENVAT Rules for Rs.92,478/-, Rs.12,24,538/- and Rs.5,18,920/- for the period April 2007 to June 2007; July 2007 to September 2007 and October 2007 to December 2007. The original authority by order dated 28.03.2013 rejected the claim on the ground it was time barred. Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the said order on the ground that limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short 'Act') does not apply for a accumulated Cenvat Credit. Revenue filed appeals before CESTAT and tribunal after considering the rival contentions by order dated 02.12.2016 has allowed the appeal of Revenue by setting aside the order of the appellate authority and restored the order of the original authority by opining that refund claim has to undergo the scrutiny of limitation provided under the Act and as such accepted the plea of the revenue.