2010 (10) TMI 323 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of unutilized cenvat credit - Limitation - The original refund claim was filed by the assessee on 31-12-2004 and subsequently resubmitted on 28-2-05 - Revenue s contention that the said refund claim was filed with the Superintendent and was received by the Deputy Commissioner on 30-9-05 - That the Revenue accepts that the original refund claim was filed in the Division office on 30-1-04 but their contention is that the same only bears initial of some person without any mention of name or designation of the said person nor it has stamp of Division office - They cannot be held that the refund claim bears the acknowledgment of the Division - The letter dated 13-1-05 written by Deputy Commissioner requiring the respondents to resubmit refund application alongwith relevant documents is not being doubted by the revenue in the Memo of appeal - The genuineness of the refund claim filed on 13-1-04 cannot be doubted - No merits are found in the Revenue s appeal - The same is accordingly rejected.

Summary

Issues:
1. Timeliness of the refund claim filed by the respondents under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
2. Dispute regarding the date of filing the refund claim and its acknowledgment by the authorities.
3. Validity of the original refund claim submitted by the respondents.
4. Consideration of the date of receipt of the refund claim by the Deputy Commissioner for determining timeliness.

Analysis:

1. The primary issue in this case is the timeliness of the refund claim filed by the respondents under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Revenue contended that the claim was filed beyond the one-year limitation period as the cenvat credit was availed between 1-6-04 to 16-6-04, and the claim was submitted on 13-9-05. However, the respondents argued that the original claim was filed on 31-12-2004, within the limitation period, and was resubmitted on 28-2-05. The Appellate Authority rejected the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing that the actual date of filing the refund claim was 31-12-04, well within the stipulated one-year period under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

2. Another crucial issue revolved around the dispute regarding the date of filing the refund claim and its acknowledgment by the authorities. The Deputy Commissioner's letter dated 13-1-05 directed the respondents to resubmit the claim along with certain documents, referencing the refund claimed on 13-1-04. The Appellate Authority highlighted that the refund claim filed on 31-12-04 was acknowledged by the office of the Deputy Commissioner on the same date, and the resubmitted claim on 28-2-05 was also within the permissible timeframe.

3. The validity of the original refund claim submitted by the respondents was a significant point of contention. The Revenue argued that the original claim filed on 31-12-2004 lacked acknowledgment by the Division office, casting doubt on its authenticity. However, the Appellate Authority found no merit in this argument, emphasizing that the genuineness of the refund claim filed on 13-1-04 could not be questioned based on the lack of certain formalities like official stamps or signatures.

4. Lastly, the consideration of the date of receipt of the refund claim by the Deputy Commissioner for determining timeliness was crucial. The Revenue insisted that the date of receipt by the Deputy Commissioner on 30-9-05 should be the determining factor. However, the Appellate Authority upheld the original filing date of 31-12-04 as the relevant date for assessing the timeliness of the claim, dismissing the Revenue's argument regarding the acknowledgment by the Division office.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, affirming the validity and timeliness of the refund claim filed by the respondents, ultimately upholding the decision of the Appellate Authority.