2012 (10) TMI 690 - HC - Central Excise

Limitation - Refund claim - petitioner had supplied aviation fuel to Air India - foreign bound flights such fuel would not attract excise duty - petitioner mistakenly paid the same Held that - it is established that the petitioner has fulfilled the mandatory and substantive requirement of the rules and the notification, its refund claim should not be defeated on the ground of some procedural infraction or the documents not being supplied in the original at the outset. In other words, on the basis of available and reliable documents and the materials on record, if the petitioner is in a position to establish before the Revisional Authority that the excise duty though exempt was paid wrongly, surely its refund claim should be granted. Limitation for claiming rebate of duty under Section 11B is one year - refund claim of the petitioner was barred by limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the Act - To the extent the petitioner s refund claim pertained to the period beyond one year from the relevant date, the same would not be maintainable. To the extent the claim is within the period of limitation, the Revisional Authority shall re-examine the issue

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order dismissing revision application for refund claim; Limitation period for refund claim; Compliance with mandatory requirements for refund claim.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, an oil corporation, challenged the dismissal of its revision application for a refund claim regarding excise duty paid on aviation fuel supplied to Air India for foreign bound flights. The claim was rejected on various grounds, including time-barred claims and lack of documentary evidence.

2. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the refund claim on 12-2-08, citing non-compliance with rules and exemption notification. The petitioner's subsequent appeals were also dismissed, leading to the current petition challenging the Revisional Authority's decision.

3. The High Court noted that part of the refund claim was time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The remaining claim was contested by the respondents for non-compliance with mandatory requirements. The petitioner argued for the entire claim to be granted.

4. The Court referred to a separate order in a related case, emphasizing that the limitation period for refund claims is one year from the relevant date. Citing legal precedents, the Court highlighted that the time limit for refund claims is a substantive provision that cannot be extended without clear statutory authority.

5. Regarding claims falling within the limitation period but rejected for non-compliance, the Court remanded a similar case for fresh consideration. Emphasizing the need for a thorough examination of evidence, the Court directed the Revisional Authority to reconsider the case based on substantive requirements rather than procedural issues.

6. The Court concluded that the authorities were justified in rejecting the petitioner's refund claim as time-barred under Section 11B. However, for claims within the limitation period, the Court directed a re-examination by the Revisional Authority, focusing on substantive compliance with rules and notifications.

7. In summary, the petition was partially allowed, with time-barred claims being dismissed and claims within the limitation period being remanded for reconsideration based on substantive compliance with rules and notifications. The Court emphasized the importance of meeting mandatory requirements for refund claims, while also ensuring a fair opportunity for re-examination in cases of potential substantive compliance.