2016 (2) TMI 108 - AT - Central Excise

Claim of refund - relevant date - entitlement to refund after final judgement - period of limitation - whether or not the appellant filed the claim for refund in time as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944? - Held that - As per Section 11 B, the relevant date means in case where the duty becomes refundable as consequent of judgement, decree, order, or direction of appellate authority, appellate Tribunal, or any court, the date of such judgement, decree, order, or direction . It is an admitted fact that the present claim for refund arose consequent on the order dated 3.5.2011 of the Commissioner (Appeals). The refund claim in proper form was filed by the appellant on 23.02.2013. As find that the appellant s plea that their communication dated 19.09.2011 addressed to the Superintendent of Central Excise, in connection with the recovery proceedings of arrears cannot be accepted. Firstly, such fax communication dated 19.09.2011 could not be placed on record by the appellant for examination of the contents. Secondly, the Original Authority had given a factual finding as to whether the said communication can be treated as a valid document for determining the relevant date. He recorded that the said communication deals with recovery of outstanding arrears and also mentions about amount of ₹ 2,58,025/- due to the appellant. It is also to be noted that immediately on receipt of communication dated 19.09.2011, the Dy. Commissioner informed the appellant to file a claim as per procedure and, if necessary, may seek guidance of jurisdictional Range Officers. Even after receipt of such communication, the appellant did not file any claim for refund though they had much more than six months time before the time limit. The claim was filed only on 23.02.2013.

Summary

Issues:
1. Claim of refund for dropped demand by Commissioner (Appeals) on grounds of time bar.

Analysis:
The appeal in question was against the Order dated 24.02.2015 of the Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur, where proceedings were initiated against the appellant for demanding central excise duty on clearance of capital goods/scrap. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed a demand of &8377; 2,04,100/- along with penalties and dropped a demand of &8377; 2,58,025/-. The present dispute revolves around the claim of refund for the dropped demand. A show cause notice was issued to reject the refund claim of &8377; 2,58,025/ filed by the appellant on the ground of time bar. The Original Authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection of the refund claim on the same ground, leading to the appellant filing the present appeal.

The main contention raised by the appellant was that the claim for refund was consequential to the order-in-appeal dated 3.5.2011, which dropped the demand of &8377; 2,58,025/-. The appellant claimed to have sent a fax on 19.09.2011 staking their refund claim, arguing that this communication should be considered as a valid claim. However, the AR representing the respondent reiterated the findings of the Lower Authorities, emphasizing that the communication dated 19.09.2011 was not related to a refund claim but to the recovery of outstanding dues as per the Appellate Order dated 3.5.2011.

The key point for decision was whether the appellant filed the refund claim within the time limit prescribed by Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The relevant date for refund as per Section 11B is the date of the judgement, decree, order, or direction of the appellate authority. The appellant filed the refund claim on 23.02.2013, which was after the order dated 3.5.2011 of the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant's argument that the communication dated 19.09.2011 should be considered as a claim was rejected by the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that the communication primarily dealt with the recovery of outstanding arrears and did not constitute a valid refund claim. Despite being advised to file a claim for refund, the appellant failed to do so within the stipulated time frame, only submitting the claim on 23.02.2013. Based on these findings, the Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision to reject the refund claim on grounds of time bar, ultimately dismissing the appeal.