2015 (2) TMI 1145 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim under Notification NO. 27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.6.2012 denied - Held that - As decided in Sandoz Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Belapur 2015 (10) TMI 882 - CESTAT MUMBAI the failure to debit on the date of filing the refund claim is not such a lapse that it would debar the appellants from the refund. On the day of debiting the CENVAT account they have fulfilled the conditions of the notification. In that event they become entitled to refund on that date. In view of above the impugned order is set aside the appeal is allowed with consequential benefit. As only violation alleged in the impugned order is failure to debit the CENVAT Credit account before filing the refund claim. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim under Notification NO. 27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.6.2012 rejected due to failure to follow conditions of Sr. No. H.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in exporting and manufacturing medicaments, sought a refund of &8377; 91,66,073 under Notification NO. 27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.6.2012. The claim was initially denied by the original adjudicating authority and the first appellate authority, citing non-compliance with the conditions of Sr. No. H of the notification. The appellant contested this decision in appeal, arguing alignment with a precedent set by the Tribunal in the case of Sandoz Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur. The Tribunal's decision emphasized that fulfilling the conditions of the notification, even if done at a later date, entitles the appellant to the refund. The failure to debit the CENVAT Credit account before filing the refund claim was the sole issue raised in the impugned order, which was overturned based on the Tribunal's precedent, granting the appeal and setting aside the original decision.

This judgment underscores the importance of adhering to the conditions specified in notifications for availing refunds, while also highlighting the significance of judicial precedents in interpreting and applying such conditions. The ruling provides clarity on the timing of fulfilling notification requirements, emphasizing that compliance at a later date does not necessarily disqualify a party from claiming refunds. The decision serves as a reminder for authorities to consider past judgments and ensure consistency in their decisions, especially when dealing with similar issues. Ultimately, the judgment upholds the appellant's right to the refund based on the Tribunal's established interpretation of the relevant provisions, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination of factual and legal aspects in such cases.