2016 (9) TMI 1412 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - Since, the goods were eligible for supply at Nil rate of duty and since the duty was paid appellant filed claim of refund - denial on the ground of time limitation and that proper original documents like invoices (under Rule 11 & PLA) were not submitted - Held that - the substantial provisions of law which is to be eligible for refund has been complied with by the appellant. The endorsement of refund on original copies of invoices is not a substantial requirement to be eligible for refund - the Original Authority is directed to grant refund to the appellant within 60 days of receipt of copy of this order in his office - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Claim of refund on grounds of time-bar and submission of original documents.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the refund claim of Central Excise duty paid on the supply of Naphtha to National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. The appellant claimed a refund of the duty paid based on certain notifications exempting Naphtha supplied to NTPC under specific conditions. The Original Authority rejected the claim citing time-bar and non-submission of proper original documents like invoices. The appellant appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals), who allowed the appeal, stating that the refund claim was within time and eligible. However, the Original Authority rejected the refund again, emphasizing the non-submission of original invoices. The appellant contended that the endorsement of refund on original invoices was not a substantial requirement for eligibility. Upon hearing both parties, the Tribunal found that the substantial provisions for refund eligibility were met by the appellant and that the endorsement on original invoices was not a significant requirement. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the Original Authority to grant the refund within 60 days and to consider the provisions related to interest on delayed refunds. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.

This judgment highlights the importance of complying with substantial provisions for refund eligibility and clarifies that certain requirements, such as the endorsement on original invoices, may not be crucial for admissibility. The Tribunal's decision emphasizes the need for authorities to consider the core legal requirements rather than rigidly focusing on procedural formalities.