9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (9) TMI 950 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - Refund claim - Held that - Duty self-assessed by the appellant with respect to inputs lying in stock as well as those lying in the finished goods was paid in the month of July 2004 and the interest was paid on 5-12-2005 through PLA. It is also observed from the case records that the adjudicating authority vide OIO dated. 24-4-2007 has sanctioned refund of interest amount of 3, 79, 312/- as the same was paid on 5-12-2005 and the refund application was made on 17-11-2005. So far as the remaining refund claim amount of 38, 22, 813/- is concerned the same represent the duty self-calculated by the appellant and paid suo motu. At the time of payment/reversal of CENVAT credit Larger Bench decision in the case of CC. Rajkot v. Ashok Iron & Steel Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. (2002 (1) TMI 91 - CEGAT NEW DELHI) was available. As per the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act 1944 all the refund claims are required to be filed within the stipulated time limit prescribed. - Decided against assessee.
Issues:
- Refund claim rejection based on limitation under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Merits of the refund claim rejection - Non-appearance of the appellant during the hearing - Duty self-assessed and interest payment by the appellant Refund Claim Rejection Based on Limitation: The appellant, a tractor manufacturer, stopped availing CENVAT Credit for exempted tractors per Notification No. 23/2004-C.E. The appellant calculated and reversed CENVAT credit amounts on specific dates. A refund claim was filed after realizing the credit did not need to be reversed based on a Larger Bench decision. The first appellate authority rejected the refund claim citing it was beyond the prescribed period under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Revenue argued the rejection was correct due to the delay in filing. Merits of the Refund Claim Rejection: The appellant did not appear during the hearing, indicating a lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. The duty self-assessed by the appellant was paid in July 2004, with interest paid in December 2005. The refund of interest was sanctioned as it met the criteria. However, the remaining refund claim amount was for duty self-calculated and paid by the appellant. The appellant cited a judgment in another case regarding a mistake, but the Tribunal found it not applicable as the Larger Bench decision was available when the amounts were paid. The first appellate authority correctly rejected the appeal on merit based on the facts of the case. Non-Appearance of the Appellant during the Hearing: The appellant's consistent non-appearance during hearings suggested a lack of interest in pursuing the appeal, which was noted by the Tribunal. This behavior influenced the decision to reject the appeal on both merit and non-prosecution grounds. Duty Self-Assessed and Interest Payment by the Appellant: The appellant's self-assessment of duty and interest payment on specific dates were scrutinized. The refund claim was partially accepted concerning interest payment, but the larger duty refund was rejected. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of timely filing refund claims and distinguished the facts of this case from the precedent cited by the appellant. Consequently, the appeal was rejected on both merit and non-prosecution grounds. This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD highlights the issues involved, the arguments presented, and the Tribunal's decision based on the facts and legal provisions relevant to the case.
|
