2015 (11) TMI 674 - HC - Central Excise

Denial of refund claim - Whether a refund claim in terms of Rule 57F(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Notification No.85/87-CE dated 01.03.87 in respect of credit of duty taken under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which remain unutilized in respect of those consignments which were exported and sailed prior to 21.05.89, made after expiry of six months is not barred by limitation - Held that - The credit of the duty taken under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which has remained unutilised in respect of those consignments which were exported and sailed prior to 21st May, 1989 is now time barred, if the refund application is made after six months from the date of export.The credit of the duty taken under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which has remained unutilised in respect of those consignments which were exported and sailed prior to 21st May, 1989 is now time barred, if the refund application is made after six months from the date of export. - Miles India Limited Vs Assistant Collector of Customs reported in 1984 (4) TMI 63 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA if the application is time barred, the same is liable to be dismissed - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Whether a refund claim under Rule 57F(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, made after six months from the date of export, is barred by limitation?

Analysis:

1. The appellant argued that the refund application in question was rejected as time-barred, despite being submitted in the prescribed format within the time limit. The appellant contended that the CESTAT did not properly consider the circumstances surrounding the application, leading to an unjust rejection.

2. The appellant relied on a Supreme Court decision stating that refund claims filed beyond the limitation period are liable to be rejected, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory timelines in such matters.

3. On the other hand, the respondent argued that the CESTAT correctly allowed the appeal, highlighting that the refund claim was submitted just a day or two beyond the deadline, considering the date discrepancy between the application and its receipt by the Department.

4. The High Court reviewed the facts and found that while multiple refund applications were made, the rejection in question was primarily due to being time-barred and not in the prescribed format. The Order-in-Original and subsequent appeals upheld this rejection based on the limitation period.

5. The Court noted that the notification in question permitted only one refund application per quarter in a calendar year, highlighting the importance of strict adherence to the prescribed timelines for such claims.

6. Considering the legal provisions and precedents cited, the Court concluded that the refund claim, made beyond the six-month period as required by Section 11B of the Central Excise Rules, was rightly rejected as time-barred, affirming the decision of the Deputy Commissioner and setting aside the CESTAT's order.

7. Ultimately, the Court allowed the appeal, quashed the CESTAT's decision, and affirmed the original rejection of the refund claim, emphasizing the significance of adhering to statutory timelines in claiming refunds under the Central Excise Rules.