2017 (2) TMI 1316 - HC - Central Excise

Refund claim - time limitation - N/N. 27/2012 - Held that - Section 11B of the Act provides that a refund claim could be made by an assessee before the expiry of one year from the relevant date. It is not disputed that in the present case, the refund claim was made by the respondent-assessee before the expiry of one year from the relevant date - The finding of the Tribunal that the refund claim made by the respondent-assessee was not time barred is just and proper and cannot be interfered with. Scope of SCN - Whether the clearances made by the respondent-assessee to International Competitive Bidding could be considered as export? - Held that - The appellate authority as well as the Tribunal have held that by the show cause notice, the respondent-assessee was not asked to show cause why the clearances made to international competitive bidding cannot be considered as exports. Since the assessee was not asked to show cause on the aforesaid question, the grounds in appeal cannot travel beyond the SCN. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:

1. Interpretation of Notification No. 27/2012 regarding the timeline for filing refund claims.
2. Classification of clearances made to International Competitive Bidding as exports.

Analysis:

Issue 1: The appellant-department challenged the order of the Tribunal regarding the timeline for filing refund claims. The appellant contended that the refund claim should have been made at the end of the relevant quarter as per Notification No. 27/2012. However, the High Court found no merit in this argument. The Court analyzed Clause 3(b) of the notification, which allowed the refund claim to be filed before the expiry of the period specified in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. Section 11B stated that a refund claim could be made before the expiry of one year from the relevant date. As the respondent-assessee had filed the refund claim within the specified time, the Court held that the claim was not time-barred. The Court concluded that the Tribunal's finding on the timeline for filing the refund claim was just and proper.

Issue 2: The appellant also contested the classification of clearances made to International Competitive Bidding as exports. The appellant argued that the Tribunal erred in considering these clearances as exports. However, the Court disagreed with this contention as well. It noted that the show cause notice did not ask the respondent-assessee to justify why the clearances to international competitive bidding should not be considered exports. Relying on precedent, the Court held that the grounds of appeal could not extend beyond the scope of the show cause notice. Therefore, the appellate authority and the Tribunal were correct in their classification of the clearances. As both issues raised by the appellant lacked merit, the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.