Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: cenvat refund in Lata Hydrocarbon Resources Pvt Ltd vs Rangareddy - G S T on 23 December, 2019Matching Fragments
Appeal No: E/30068/2019 Period after 01.04.2012:
5. Refund of CENVAT Credit. - (1) A manufacturer who clears a final product or an intermediate product for export without payment of duty under bond or letter of undertaking, or a service provider who provides an output service which is exported without payment of service tax, shall be allowed refund of CENVAT Credit as determined by the following formula subject to procedure, safeguards, conditions and limitations, as may be specified by the Board by notification in the Official Gazette............"
5. He, therefore, observed that prior to 01.04.2012 under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 refund could be claimed if the Cenvat credit could not be used for any reason. In that context, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka had, in the case of Slovak India Trading Company Pvt Ltd [2006 (201) ELT 559 (Kar)] as well as Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Lav Kush Textiles [2017 (353) ELT 417 (Raj)] and Welcur Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd [2018 (15) GSTL 257 (Raj)] held that refund should be available even if the appellant is not able to use Cenvat credit on account of closure of factory.
After 01.04.2012, however, the clause 'where for any reason such adjustment has not been possible' has been deleted. Therefore, the appellant was not entitled to refund of Cenvat credit on this ground. The refund application in this case was filed on 11.05.2017 by which time the amended provisions were in vogue. Thus holding, the learned first appellate authority allowed the department's appeal and rejected the appellant's claim of refund.
6. The present appeal is filed by the appellant on the following grounds:
f. The appellant crave leave to file further grounds which are in the nature of modified, altered or fresh grounds during the course of appeal proceedings."
7. I have considered the arguments on both sides and perused the records. The short point to be decided is whether the application for refund of Cenvat credit under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 could be sanctioned after Appeal No: E/30068/2019 01.04.2012 on the ground that the factory has been closed after a period of six years from the closure of such factory or otherwise. The appellant's case is only that they had accumulated Cenvat credit prior to the amendment and that the refund claim was filed much later and hence, they are entitled to the refund of Cenvat credit on the closure of the factory. On the question of limitation, it is the claim of the appellant that as another refund claim seeking refund of unutilized Cenvat credit for another part of the amount on another ground was already pending at various judicial fora, they could not file any second refund claim.