2012 (11) TMI 640 - 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 - petitioner claimed that entire claim was made within the period of limitation. Held that - Being a question of fact which would require examination of bulky materials, it would not be appropriate on our part to scan through such documents and to make our final conclusive remarks on the rival contentions. If on availability of evidence on record, 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.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order dismissing refund claim for excise duty on aviation fuel supplied to Air India for foreign bound flights.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Refund Claim Rejection
The petitioner, Indian Oil Corporation (IOC), challenged the order dismissing its refund claim for excise duty paid on aviation fuel supplied to Air India for foreign bound flights. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the refund claim on the grounds that the petitioner failed to establish the mandatory and substantive requirements of the exemption notification. The Appellate Authority and the Government also dismissed the appeal and revision, respectively, leading to the current petition.

Issue 2: Grounds for Rejection
The grounds for rejection included the lack of certification by Customs authorities for exportation, absence of Shipping Bill/ARE-1, missing invoice copies, failure to follow procedures for exportation, and lack of corroborative evidence for duty paid material supplied to foreign flights. The authorities emphasized the importance of complying with Central Excise Act, Customs Act, and related regulations for refund claims.

Issue 3: Arguments and Precedents
The petitioner argued that its refund claim was within the limitation period and highlighted discrepancies in the authorities' treatment of similar cases. Precedents such as Leighton Contractors (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Sanket Industries Ltd. were cited to support the argument that procedural issues should not override the merits of the claim.

Issue 4: Examination by Revisional Authority
After considering arguments from both sides, the court found that there were documents suggesting a plausible case for the petitioner linking the duty paid fuel to foreign bound flights. The court noted the special procedure prescribed for aviation fuel consumed on foreign flights. It was decided that the revisional authority should reexamine the case to determine if the petitioner fulfilled the substantive requirements for the refund claim.

Issue 5: Decision and Directions
The court set aside the order of the Revisional Authority and directed a fresh consideration of the petitioner's case. The Revisional Authority was instructed to reevaluate the claim based on available evidence and materials, ensuring that procedural issues do not unjustly deny the refund claim if the substantive requirements were met. The petition was disposed of accordingly, emphasizing the need for a thorough review by the Revisional Authority.