M/S. Resource Technologies Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 26/2011(H-III) CE dated 25/03/2011 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, HYDERABAD-III.]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes

M/s. Resource Technologies Pvt. Ltd D.No.2-62/1, First Floor, Navya Estate, Moula Ali, HYDERABAD  500 007. AP Appellant(s)

Versus

Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs And Service Tax HYDERABAD-III OPP. LB STADIUM ROAD, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD, - 500004 ANDHRA PRADESH

Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Mr. BASHEER AHMED KHAN, IRS (Retd) FLAT NO.305, SRIKRISHNA BALAJI APTS, BALAJI NAGAR, MEHDIPATNAM, HYDERABAD - 500006 AP For the Appellant

Mr. N. Jagadish, Superintendent (AR) For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 03/08/2015

Date of Decision: 03/08/2015

CORAM:

HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 21759 / 2015

Per : ARCHANA WADHWA

After hearing both the sides, I find that the lower authorities have denied the appellants refund claim in terms of the provisions of Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 on the ground of limitation.

2. The appellants contention is that Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 allows refund of the unutilized accumulated CENVAT credit in respect of inputs used in relation to manufacture of exported goods and as such, no time limit can be read into the said Rule. In support, he has referred to various decisions of the Tribunal.

3. Learned DR appearing for the Revenue submits that as per law declared by the Honble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore vs. GTN Engineering (I) Ltd. as reported 2012 (281) E.L.T. 185 (Mad.), the limitation in terms of the provisions of Section 11B would be equally applicable to the refund arising in terms of Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. In fact, he submits that the issue again stands decided by the Honble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai vs. M/s. Celebrity Desings India Pvt. Ltd.: 2015-TIOL-646-HC-MAD-CX, again laying down that the refund application under the said Rule should be filed before the expiry of the period specified in Section 11B. The said decision stands followed by the Tribunal in the case of Apotex Research Pvt. Ltd. and Others vs. CCE vide Interim Order No. 79 to 152/2014

4. Inasmuch as the issue stands decided, and inasmuch as it is an admitted position that the refunds have been filed after the expiry of the limitation period prescribed under Section 11B, I find no merits in the appellants stand. Appeal is accordingly rejected.

(Operative portion of the order was pronounced in open court on 3.8.2015.)

ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER

rv

3