2007 (1) TMI 273 - AT - Central Excise

Appellants had filed a refund claim - After receipt of the clarification, the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner issued a show cause notice proposing to reject the refund claim - assessee had filed the claim for refund of this revised amount in response to the clarification sought by the range officer - Held that - refund claim was filed for the credit relating to two ARE-1s - it was not proper on the part of the Commissioner (Appeals), to have adopted the date of filing of the claim for the revised amount, which was part of the amount originally claimed, as the date of filing the refund claim - original refund claim was filed in time prescribed under the Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 the claim had been filed in time and the finding of time bar is incorrect. Accordingly I allow the appeal

Summary

Issues:
Stay application against time-barred refund claim.

Analysis:
The case involved a stay application by M/s. Super Spinning Mills Ltd. - TFO Unit, Coimbatore, against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) deciding a refund claim for Rs. 3,01,399/- as hit by time bar. The appellants had initially filed a refund claim for Rs. 50,73,000/-, which was later revised to Rs. 5,97,026/- in response to a reference from the jurisdictional range officer seeking clarifications. The Commissioner (Appeals) found the claim in respect of a specific Shipping Bill to be time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

The Ld. Counsel argued that the Commissioner erred in computing the time limit based on the revised claim filing date, as the original claim was filed within the prescribed time. The appellants contended that they were eligible for the refund related to both the original claim and the revised amount. The Ld. Counsel cited case law to support the argument that a refund claim should not be denied solely for not being filed in the prescribed format and that modifying a claim after the original filing does not render it time-barred.

The Tribunal, after considering the submissions from both sides, found that the original refund claim was filed within the prescribed time limit under Section 11B. The Tribunal noted that the revised claim was a part of the original claim and was filed in response to the range officer's directions to file in the prescribed format. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the finding of time bar by the Commissioner (Appeals) was incorrect and allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and allowed the appeal, stating that the original refund claim was filed within the prescribed time limit, and the revised claim should not be treated as a separate filing for the purpose of computing the time bar under the Central Excise Act, 1944.