2015 (10) TMI 333 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of refund claim - non availability of sufficient documents - Bar of limitation - Held that - Advocate drew the attention of the Bench to the relevant letter issued by Superintendent, Central Excise. The Range Officer requested the Appellant to provide several documents, and thereafter the assessee resubmitted the refund claim with all the documents as directed by the Range Officer. The Tribunal in the case of Indra Processors Vs Commissioner, Central Excise, Jallandhar - 2008 (7) TMI 777 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI held that resubmission of refund claim was at the instance of Central Excise officers and therefore, the date of filing of refund claim would be taken into consideration for the purpose of limitation. I find that the assessee filed refund claim within the stipulated period. On perusal of the letter dt.29.04.2010 of the Range Officer, it is seen that the Range Officer returned the papers on the ground that it is not possible to process to refund claim in the absence of the documents as mentioned therein and the assessee was directed to do the needful. Hence, the Commissioner (Appeals) erroneously accepted the date of filing of the refund claim is on 29.09.2010. Assessee by letter dt.21.10.2010 had categorically requested to withdraw the amount of ₹ 6,47,473.00 as they had no documentary evidence. In the certificate dt.22.04.2011, I do not find any specific mention of this amount. Hence, both the authorities below has rightly rejected the refund claim of ₹ 6,47,473.00 - impugned order is modified to the extent that the rejection of refund of ₹ 19,26,095.00 as time barred is set aside. The Adjudicating authority is directed to decide this matter as per the direction of Commissioner (Appeals) and sanction the refund claim except the rejection of refund of ₹ 6,47,473.00, which is upheld. - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim rejection as time-barred.
2. Withdrawal of refund claim amount.
3. Commissioner (Appeals) power to remand the case.

Issue 1: Refund claim rejection as time-barred:
The case involved the rejection of a refund claim of &8377; 33,51,796.00 filed by the assessee for the period June 2009 to March 2010 as time-barred. The Commissioner (Appeals) modified the Adjudication order, upholding the rejection of a part of the refund claim as time-barred and directing the Adjudicating authority to decide the refund claim on merit for the remaining amount. The Tribunal disagreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) and held that the resubmission of the refund claim was due to the Central Excise officers' request for additional documents. Citing a precedent, the Tribunal determined that the date of filing the refund claim should be within the stipulated period, contrary to the Commissioner (Appeals) ruling based on the resubmission date.

Issue 2: Withdrawal of refund claim amount:
The appeal addressed the withdrawal of a specific amount of &8377; 6,47,473.00 by the assessee due to a lack of documentary evidence. The Revenue contended that this amount was included in a customer's certificate, while the assessee had clearly requested withdrawal in a letter. The Tribunal upheld the rejection of this refund claim amount by both lower authorities, emphasizing the absence of specific mention of the amount in the customer's certificate.

Issue 3: Commissioner (Appeals) power to remand the case:
The Revenue challenged the Commissioner (Appeals)'s authority to remand the case, citing a Supreme Court decision. However, the Tribunal referred to a different Tribunal case and a Supreme Court decision to establish that the Commissioner (Appeals) indeed had the power to remand the matter. Considering contradictory decisions, the Tribunal concluded that, in the relevant state, the Commissioner had the authority to remand the case. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal and partly allowed the assessee's appeal, directing the Adjudicating authority to decide the matter on merit and unjust enrichment, considering relevant case laws.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD's judgment addressed the issues of the time-barred refund claim rejection, withdrawal of a refund claim amount, and the Commissioner (Appeals) power to remand the case. The Tribunal provided detailed analysis and legal interpretations, ultimately upholding the refund claim's time-barred rejection, withdrawal of a specific amount, and confirming the Commissioner (Appeals)'s authority to remand the case.