Order Date – 19 December 2023

Parties: M/s. Rakon India Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Commissioner of Central Tax

Facts –

• The Appellant, M/s. Rakon India Pvt. Ltd., is a 100% EOU who manufacture and export ‘Crystal and Oscillators’. They filed a refund claim of unutilized cenvat credit on input and input services. The refund was partly rejected by the Original authority on the ground that the shipping bills were not filed along with the claim. 
• Upon being producing the shipping biils before the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order dated 27.10.2017 the matter was remened back for verification of shipping bill for calculation of the eligible amount of refund. The appellant vide letter dated 01.07.2019 requested for verifiaction of the same by submitting copies of shipping bills on 15.7.2019.
• The original authority rejected the refund claim on the ground that it was filed beyond the time limit from the date of issue of Order-in-Appeal in accordance with Explanation B(ec) to Section 11B. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this order.

Issue –

• Whether the appellant is entitled to  refund claim of unutilized cenvat credit on input and input services?

Order –

• The Tribunal observed that Rule 5 for refund of cenvat credit under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.6.2012 clearly states that refund claim should be accompanied with the copies of the shipping bills which is the basis for claiming any refund under the said Rule.
• The Original Authority on verification, sanctioned refund claim only to the extent of claim being complete and rejected balance as it was not accompanied with the relevant shipping bills. Further, any claim filed thereafter along with the shipping bills is a fresh claim and the appellant on remand should have filed the claim with the stipulated time and instead files after 2 years claiming that there is no time. The laws and the rules that specifically mention the due dates cannot be ignored.
• It was observed that the appellant filed the complete refund claim along with the shipping bills only on 14.10.2019 i.e., after two years from the date of order of the Commissioner (A) is clearly time barred and hence, the claims rejected on time bar by the authorities is justified.
• The appeal is dismissed.