CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI REGIONAL BENCH – COURT No. III Excise Appeal Nos. 40517 of 2018 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 14/2018(Audit-I) dated 31.01.2018 passed by Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (Appeals-I), Newry Towers, 2054-I, II Avenue, 12^th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 040)

M/s. Vishay Transducers India P. Ltd. ...Appellant No. 117, OMR, Karapakkam, Chennai – 600 097.

Versus Commissioner of GST and Central Excise ...Respondent Chennai Outer Commissionerate, Newry Towers, 2054-I, II Avenue, 12^th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 040.

APPEARANCE:

For the Appellant : Mr. J.V. Niranjan, Advocate For the Respondent : Ms. Anandalakshmi Ganeshram, Authorized Representative CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. P. DINESHA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE MR. VASA SESHAGIRI RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER No. 40291 / 2026 DATE OF HEARING : 12.12.2025 DATE OF DECISION : 23.02.2026 Per Mr. VASA SESHAGIRI RAO The Appellant, M/s. Vishay Transducers India Private Limited, Chennai, is engaged in the manufacture of Load Cells classifiable under Chapter Heading 90300000 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and is also an exporter of the said goods. For the period from July 2011 to September 2011, the Appellant exported finished goods under bond and accumulated unutilised CENVAT credit on inputs and input services. Accordingly, the Appellant filed a refund claim of ₹71,90,004/- on 27.08.2012 under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, claiming refund of accumulated credit attributable to export clearances. The refund application was accompanied by documents such as Form-A refund application, statements of export invoices, ER-1 returns, extract of CENVAT credit account and declarations regarding non-availment of drawback or rebate.

1.2 During verification of the claim, the Department sought additional documents including copies of ARE-1, shipping bills, bills of lading, Chartered Accountant’s certificate and correlation statements. The Appellant, citing dislocation of its records centre, sought time to retrieve and submit the documents and intimated the same vide letters dated 10.09.2012 and 24.09.2012. Thereafter, a Show Cause Notice dated 19.11.2012 was issued proposing rejection of the refund claim solely on the ground of insufficiency of documents, without alleging any violation of limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, the original adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim vide Order-in-Original No. 02/2013 dated 31.07.2013 not only on the ground of non-submission of documents but also by introducing a new ground that the claim was time-barred under Section 11B.

1.3 On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), vide Order-in-Appeal No. 35/2015 dated 03.02.2015, set aside the rejection and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority solely for verification of documents, observing that the rejection was not on merits. Post-remand, despite repeated hearings and correspondence, the adjudicating authority again rejected the refund claim vide Order-in- Original No. 71/2016-R dated 28.09.2016, holding that the refund claim could be treated as filed only on 02.05.2016, being the date on which all documents were allegedly submitted, and therefore barred by limitation. This rejection was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in- Appeal No. 14/2017-2018 dated 31.01.2018, giving rise to the present appeal before the Tribunal.

2. The Ld. Advocate Mr. J.V. Niranjan, appeared on behalf of the Appellant and the Ld. Authorized Representative Ms. Anandalakshmi Ganeshram appeared for the Revenue.

3. The Ld. Advocate for the Appellant submitted that the refund claim was originally filed on 27.08.2012 well within the one-year limitation period prescribed under Section 11B, and that subsequent submission of documents pursuant to departmental queries cannot alter the date of filing. It was contended that limitation was never proposed in the Show Cause Notice and, therefore, reje