2015 (10) TMI 1201 - AT - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - appellants were cleared excise duty paid goods to SEZ and claimed refund under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit - Bar of limitation - 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.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal, condonation of delay, demand of interest on erroneous refund, time bar issue, re-credit of cenvat credit.

Analysis:
The case involved a delay of 433 days in filing an appeal, with the appellant claiming it was unintentional and for bonafide reasons. The appellants had cleared excise duty paid goods to SEZ and claimed a refund under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit. A show cause notice was issued, and the adjudicating authority granted the refund. However, the department filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who held that the refund was time-barred and allowed the appellants to take re-credit of cenvat credit. The appellants, believing it to be bonafide, took re-credit and paid back the refund amount. Another show cause notice was issued by the department demanding interest on the erroneous refund granted, leading to the present appeal for condonation of the delay in filing. The appellant relied on legal precedents to support their case.

The Revenue opposed the condonation of delay, arguing that the issue of interest recovery was separate from the original appeal and had already been discussed in the previous proceedings. The Commissioner (Appeals) had deemed the refund time-barred after considering submissions from the appellants.

Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal noted that the impugned order allowed the appellants to take cenvat credit by way of re-credit but the department issued another show cause notice for interest on the refunded amount, which had already been paid by the appellants. The Tribunal found the delay in filing the appeal justified, as it was due to the initiation of additional proceedings against the appellants. Citing legal precedents, including a Supreme Court decision and a Tribunal decision, the Tribunal allowed the condonation of delay and accepted the COD application.

In conclusion, the Tribunal granted the appeal, condoning the delay in filing and allowing the COD application based on the justifications provided by the appellant and the circumstances surrounding the case.