2018 (5) TMI 1805 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of duty paid - export of goods - rejection of refund on the ground of time limitation - Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that - The First Appellate Authority should be give an opportunity to reconsider the issue afresh. Accordingly, impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority to reconsider the issue afresh after following the principles of natural justice - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved: Rejection of refund claim on the grounds of limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT HYDERABAD dealt with an appeal against the rejection of a refund claim by the appellant concerning the duty paid on exported goods. The appellant had initially paid Central Excise duty on the goods cleared for export, claimed a rebate, and later returned the excess rebate amount as directed by Revenue Authorities due to a revaluation of the realization certificate. The appellant then sought re-credit of the excess amount, citing that they had debited the amount from their CENVAT account. Both lower authorities rejected the refund claim, citing limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

The judgment highlighted that in a similar issue, the First Appellate Authority had taken a different view and allowed the refund claim filed by the appellant. Upon comparing the impugned order in appeal with the order from the First Appellate Authority, the tribunal found a discrepancy. Consequently, the tribunal decided to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority for reconsideration, emphasizing the need to follow the principles of natural justice. This decision aimed to provide the First Appellate Authority with an opportunity to reevaluate the issue thoroughly.

In conclusion, the judgment focused on the procedural aspect of reconsidering the refund claim rejection in light of differing views between authorities, emphasizing the importance of adhering to natural justice principles in such matters. The decision to remand the case back to the Adjudicating Authority aimed to ensure a fair and comprehensive review of the issue at hand.