2015 (11) TMI 247 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of refund claim - Bar of limitation - Held that - As regards, rejection of refund of priod of limitation, I find that the said appeal needs to be rejected and both the lower authorities were correct in coming to a conclusion that refund claim of ₹ 4,39,002/- is time barred. It is seen from the records that the assessee had issued credit note in March 2003 and refund claim is filed on 5th April, 2004 which is beyond the period of 12 months as mandated in Sec. 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Refund due of revision in price escalation clause - refund claim was filed withing one year from the issuance of credit notes - Held that - The issuance of credit note by the assessee is not disputed. If that be so the judgment of Hon ble High Court Rajasthan in the case of A.K. Spintex Ltd. (2008 (11) TMI 89 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT ) is directly on the point. It is to be recorded that the judgment of Hon ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of A.P. Papers Mills Ltd. (2014 (3) TMI 671 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT ) also covers the issue in favour of the assessee, as to that refund claim filed by an assessee, he has to only satisfiy the provision of Sec. 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and not any further. I find that in the case in hand, the appellant has satisfied all the requirements of provision of Sec. 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In view of forgoing appeal filed by the revenue of devoid of merits - Appeal disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disposal of appeals by revenue and assessee against Order-in-Appeal No. AGS(194)84/09 dated 26.08.2009.

Analysis:
1. The issue in this case revolves around the refund claim filed by the appellant under Sec. 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, amounting to &8377; 71,78,191/-, based on excess central excise duty paid due to a price revision clause in the agreement with purchasers. The adjudicating authority rejected part of the refund claim, leading to appeals from both the revenue and the assessee.

2. The first appellate authority allowed a refund of &8377; 35,91,361/- to the appellant but rejected a refund claim of &8377; 4,39,002/-. The authority concluded that the appellant was entitled to the refund based on the retrospective price revision by the buyer, which led to the issuance of credit notes and a reduction in the transaction value, thus justifying the refund claim.

3. The revenue contended that the issuance of credit notes did not signify a non-passing of the duty burden, citing various decisions to support their argument. However, the appellant relied on relevant case laws to establish their entitlement to the refund based on the specific circumstances of the case.

4. Upon thorough consideration of submissions and records, the appellate authority upheld the rejection of the refund claim of &8377; 4,39,002/- as time-barred, as the claim was filed beyond the 12-month period stipulated in Sec. 11B. The appeal filed by the appellant on this issue was consequently rejected.

5. Regarding the revenue's appeal, the appellate authority found that the grounds raised by the revenue lacked merit. The authority emphasized that the appellant had met all requirements of Sec. 11B, and the issuance of credit notes was not disputed. Citing relevant judgments, the authority upheld the appellant's entitlement to the refund, ultimately rejecting the revenue's appeal.

6. In conclusion, both appeals were disposed of accordingly, with the revenue's appeal being rejected due to lack of merit, and the appellant's appeal on the time-barred refund claim also being dismissed.

End of Analysis