2013 (12) TMI 764 - AT - Customs

Denial of refund claim - Bar of limitation - Held that - As regards the denial of refund by the Original authority on the ground that the credit was not taken by the respondent within a period of reasonable time , the same has been rightly allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) as there was no specific time limit for credit to be taken under the Cenvat Credit Rules - No valid reason to interfere with the decision on merits given by the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that refund could not be rejected on the ground that the credit has been taken belatedly. Commissioner (Appeals) has merely given another opportunity to the respondents to produce the documents before the Original authority for fresh consideration. This has been given in the light of the submissions made before the Commissioner (Appeals). As the matter required factual verification by the Original authority, the course of action prescribed by him appears appropriate. Though the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to remand matter with effect from 11-5-2001 after amendment to Section 35A, the grounds on which the matter was remitted to the Original authority appears genuine. Therefore, I direct the Original authority to verify the claim of the assesses with reference to the documents and consider the refund claim afresh - Decided partly in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order for refund under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 - Denial of refund claim - Verification of documents for refund - Time limit for taking credit under Cenvat Credit Rules.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the department challenging the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding a refund claim under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004. The Original authority had allowed a partial refund and rejected the balance. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the appeal of the party, stating that there was no specific time limit prescribed for taking credit under the Cenvat Credit Rules. The Commissioner (Appeals) directed the Original authority to re-examine the claim in light of the submissions made regarding the availability of relevant documents. The Commissioner (Appeals) emphasized that procedural lapses should not result in substantive benefits being denied.

Regarding the denial of refund due to the alleged delay in taking credit, the Commissioner (Appeals) decision was upheld as there was no specified time limit for taking credit. The Commissioner (Appeals) provided the party with another opportunity to present the necessary documents for a fresh review by the Original authority. Despite lacking the power to remand matters post-amendment to Section 35A, the Commissioner (Appeals) deemed the course of action appropriate due to the need for factual verification. Thus, the Original authority was directed to verify the claim with reference to the documents and reconsider the refund claim.

The judgment concluded that there were no valid reasons to interfere with the decision on merits made by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the belated credit claim. The Original authority was instructed to reevaluate the validity of documents submitted by the assessee and process the refund claim in compliance with the law. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, with directions for further verification and consideration of the refund claim by the Original authority.