Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Pidilite Industries Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Mumbai)
Appeal Number : Excise Appeal No: 86829 of 2013
Date of Judgement/Order : 11/10/2023
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Pidilite Industries Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Mumbai)

Introduction: In a recent decision by the CESTAT Mumbai in the case of Pidilite Industries Ltd, issues surrounding the rejection of a refund claim for CENVAT credit came to the forefront. The case, related to the refund of accumulated credit on exports, questioned the time limitation and the justification for the inability to utilize the credit.

Detailed Analysis: The case of M/s Pidilite Industries Ltd revolved around a refund claim of ₹44,03,076 related to accumulated CENVAT credit. This credit pertained to exports carried out from April 2011 to June 2012. The rejection of the refund claim was based on two primary grounds. The first ground was that the claim was filed beyond the period of limitation of one year from the date of exports. The second ground stated that there was no justification provided for the inability to utilize the credit.

The appellant, a manufacturer of excisable goods engaged in both domestic and international trade, had availed CENVAT credit on inputs and input services used in the manufacturing process. The claim for refund was made under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. However, this claim was rejected by the original authority, and the subsequent appeal with the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-II), Mumbai met a similar fate.

The argument put forth by the appellant was that the claim adhered to the conditions outlined in notification no. 5/2006-CE (NT) dated 14th March 2006. They contended that the sanctioning authority could not impose restrictions not specified in the notification. It was also pointed out that the lower authorities had erroneously relied on a decision by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore v. GTN Engineering (I) Ltd [2012 (281) ELT 185 (Mad.)]. The appellant’s case was supported by the decision of the Tribunal in Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Surat-I v. Swagat Synthetics [2008 (232) ELT 413 (Guj.)].

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031