2018 (1) TMI 1466 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of excise duty - Excise Duty paid in PLA and in respect of clearance of the finished goods on monthly basis - N/N. 20/2007-C.E., dated 25-4-2007 and Notification No. 38/2008-C.E., dated 10-6-2008 - part refund rejected as it is hit by clause 3(a) of the said notification - Held that - In the present case, the appellant submitted monthwise refund claims pertaining to the period from July, 2010 to February, 2012 vide their letter dated 15-3-2012 for a total amount of ₹ 35,59,568.00. Thus, it is a clear violation of clause 3(a) of the said notification - The notification provides that the manufacturer shall submit a statement of the duty paid through PLA on a monthly basis. In the present case, the appellant had not filed the statement as per the provisions of the said notification. Therefore, the refund claims were rightly dismissed - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Claim for exemption of Central Excise duty under specific notifications; Compliance with the conditions of the notification; Rejection of refund claim due to non-compliance with the notification requirements.

Analysis:

1. Claim for Exemption of Central Excise Duty: The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of TMT Bars and M.S. Ingots and were availing exemption of Central Excise duty as per Notification No. 20/2007-C.E. and Notification No. 38/2008-C.E. The exemption was claimed by way of refunds of Excise Duty paid in PLA and for clearance of finished goods on a monthly basis.

2. Compliance with Notification Conditions: The issue arose when the appellant filed a refund claim for the period from July 2010 to February 2012. The adjudicating authority partially sanctioned the claim but rejected the balance portion citing a violation of clause 3(a) of the notification. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision, emphasizing the requirement for the manufacturer to submit a statement of duty paid through PLA on a monthly basis as per the notification.

3. Rejection of Refund Claim: The Tribunal noted that the appellant had submitted monthwise refund claims totaling a specific amount without adhering to the monthly submission requirement specified in the notification. The Tribunal held that the failure to submit the duty statement as per the notification's provisions constituted a clear violation, leading to the dismissal of the refund claims. The Tribunal rejected the argument that no specific declaration was required for exemption eligibility, emphasizing the mandatory monthly submission stipulated in the notification.

4. Judgment: After considering the arguments and the notification's clear provisions, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order rejecting the appeal filed by the appellant. The decision was based on the finding that the appellant had not fulfilled the mandatory requirement of submitting the duty statement on a monthly basis as prescribed by the notification, thereby justifying the dismissal of the refund claims.

In conclusion, the judgment focused on the importance of complying with the specific conditions outlined in the exemption notifications to claim Central Excise duty relief, emphasizing the significance of timely and accurate submission of required documentation for refund claims.