9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (7) TMI 422 - AT - Central ExciseCondonation of delay in filing an appeal - Bar of limitation - Denial of refund claim - Held that - OIA was passed on 04.10.14 and in the said order while allowing the Revenue appeal he allowed the appellants to take cenvat credit by way of re-credit. The department again issued show cause notice for demand of interest on the refund sanctioned, which was already paid by the appellant in pursuant to the OIA. We find the reasons of delay is fully justified and beyond their control due to initiation of another round of proceedings against the appellants. By respectfully, following the Hon ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag and Another Vs. MST. Katiji and Others (1987 (2) TMI 61 - SUPREME Court) and this Tribunal decision in the case of ARR Enterprise Vs. CCE, Trichy - 2013 (12) TMI 346 - CESTAT CHENNAI , the delay in filing the appeal is condoned - Delay condoned.
Issues: Condonation of delay in filing appeal due to unintentional delay and bonafide reasons; Demand of interest on erroneous refund granted; Time bar for refund claim under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit.
Condonation of Delay: The appellant filed an appeal seeking condonation of a 433-day delay in filing due to unintentional reasons. The delay was attributed to the initiation of additional proceedings by the department. The appellant contended that they were under a bonafide belief while taking re-credit and had already paid back the refund amount as per the order. The department had issued a show cause notice for demanding interest on the refund, which was already paid by the appellant. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and relying on legal precedents, including the decision in Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag and Another Vs. MST. Katiji and Others, allowed the condonation of delay and accepted the COD application. Demand of Interest on Erroneous Refund: The department issued a show cause notice demanding interest on the erroneous refund granted to the appellant. The appellant argued that the impugned order was passed on a different issue not raised in the original show cause notice. The Revenue opposed the condonation of delay, stating that the issue of time bar had already been discussed in the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). However, the Tribunal found the reasons for delay justified, as it was beyond the appellant's control due to the initiation of additional proceedings. The Tribunal referred to the decision in ARR Enterprise Vs. CCE, Trichy and the Supreme Court decision in Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag and Another Vs. MST. Katiji and Others to support the condonation of delay and allowed the COD application. Time Bar for Refund Claim under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit: The Commissioner (Appeals) had held the refund claim as time-barred in the Order-in-Appeal (OIA) dated 04.10.13, allowing the Revenue's appeal. The appellants were allowed to take re-credit of Cenvat Credit. Subsequently, the department issued another show cause notice for the demand of interest on the refund sanctioned. The Tribunal found that the delay in filing the appeal was justified due to the initiation of new proceedings against the appellants. By following legal precedents, the Tribunal condoned the delay and allowed the COD application, emphasizing that the delay was beyond the appellant's control and was due to the department's actions.
|
