CAPITAL PACKAGING PVT. LTD. Vs. C.C.E.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the appellant against OIA No. 29/2011(Ahd -III)KCG/Commr.(A)/Ahd., dt. 25.02.2011. The issue involved in this appeal is that appellant filed a refund claim of unutilized Cenvat Credit under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 after surrendering the service tax registration. First appellate authority rejected the appeal filed by the appellant on the ground that conditions specified under Notification No. , issued under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, have not been fulfilled. It was also held by the first appellate authority that appellant has not produced any evidence to prove that the goods have been exported under bond and the credit has been accumulated due to exports of goods under bond. The refund claim filed by the appellant was also held to be time barred by the first appellate authority on the grounds that the same was filed after more than 18 months from the date of surrender of the registration.

(2.) SHRI Paritosh Gupta, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that the facts stated in paragraph No. 2 of the OIA dt. 25.02.2011 passed by the first appellate authority clearly bring out that the refund claim filed was for unutilized Cenvat Credit in appellant's Cenvat Credit because of the clearance of the final products to 100% EOU. It was his case that the main issue involved before the lower authorities was whether clearances made to 100% EOU under CT -3 certificates should be considered as exports or not. He relied upon the following judgments to support his claim that exports made to 100% EOU are also treated as exports for the purpose of getting refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004:

(3.) SHRI Manoj Kutty (AR) appearing on behalf of the revenue argued that the conditions specified under Notification No. , dt. 14.03.2006 have not been fulfilled as the refund claims were not filed within the prescribed limit specified in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which have been made applicable by virtue of Clause 6 in the Appendix to Notification No. . It was his case that refund claims were not filed within the time limit prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of CCE, Coimbatore Vs. GTM Engineering (I) Ltd. wherein it was held that limitations provided under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 will also be applicable to the refund claims under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 when read with Notification No. .