9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (4) TMI 17 - AT - Central ExciseRefund claims filed after a period of more than 5 years from the date of payment of duty - Eligibility to the benefit of refund scheme under Notification No. 33/99-CE dated-8/7/1999 under clause 3 (b) - belatedly filing substantial expansion applications and refunds - Held that - In the present case the statement under clause 2 (a) of the exemption notification No.33/99-CUS is a mandatory condition that an assesse should claim the refund of duty by 7th of the next month . This condition cannot be interpreted liberally as laid down by the Apex Court. However, accepting RT-12 return in place of specific statement could be a liberal interpretation provided such RT-12 return also specifies refund amount under Notification No. 33/99-CE. Revenue cannot be expected to grant suo-moto refund under Notification No. 33/99-CE when no such claim is made by 7th of the next month either in the specific statement under the exemption notification or RT-12 return filed. Specific time limits have been prescribed under Notification No. 33/99-CE for filing a refund statements under clause 2 (a) . This statement could be a specific statement under Notification No. 33/99-CE or a RT-12 Return but such statement should have a claim for refund of duty paid through PLA. The provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are not applicable to the refunds arising out of exemption Notification No. 33/99-CE because specific monthly time limits have been prescribed under this notification. Accordingly, on cumulative reading of various provisions of Notification No. 33/99-CE, we are of the considered opinion that refund claims, filed after more than 5 to 6 years of such duty payment, are clearly time barred. - Decided against assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for the benefit of refund scheme under Notification No. 33/99-CE dated 8/7/1999 for belatedly filing substantial expansion applications and refunds. Detailed Analysis: 1. Eligibility for Refund Scheme: The core issue in these appeals is whether the tea estates (Vernerpur, Tyroon, Bokel, Hattiali, and Muttuck) are eligible for the benefit of the refund scheme under Notification No. 33/99-CE dated 8/7/1999, despite filing substantial expansion applications and refund claims belatedly. Arguments by the Appellant (Vernerpur Tea Estate): - The appellant submitted a refund claim under Notification No. 33/99-CE based on an evaluation report from a Consulting Engineer, indicating a 60% substantial expansion in installed capacity in 1999. - The refund claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority due to its submission nearly 6 years and 10 months after the expansion, deemed not within a reasonable time limit. - The appellant argued that there is no time bar for refund claims under Notification No. 33/99-CE, citing case laws such as CCE vs. Vinay Cements Ltd. and CCE vs. Nirmala Tea Estate. - The appellant also referenced CBEC Circular No. 772/5/2004-CX, which clarified that there is no bar on using second-hand machinery for substantial expansion, and filed the claim within a reasonable period from this clarification. - The appellant contended that RT-12/ER-1 returns filed from July 1999 to March 2003 contained all relevant details, negating the need for a separate monthly statement for claiming refunds. Arguments by the Revenue: - The Revenue argued that there was no confusion in clause 3(b) of Notification No. 33/99-CE during the relevant period, and a strict interpretation of the exemption notification is required, as held by the Apex Court in cases like Meridian Industries Ltd. vs. CCE. - The Revenue emphasized that the refund claims were filed much later than the specified period, which is not reasonable under the conditions of Notification No. 33/99-CE. - The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner could not verify the genuineness of the refunds filed after six years, as per Clause 2C(b) of the exemption notification. - The Revenue relied on case laws such as Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. vs. Thane Municipal Corporation to argue against liberal construction facilitating fraud and administrative inconveniences. Arguments by the Respondents (Tyroon, Bokel, Hattiali, and Muttuck Tea Estates): - The respondents undertook substantial expansion of more than 25% and submitted required certificates from Chartered Engineers. - Refund applications were filed after substantial expansion, and the show cause notice did not dispute the substantial expansion. - The respondents argued that the RT-12 returns filed monthly could be considered as the required statements for sanctioning refunds, as held in cases like CCE Dibrugarh vs. Mapuk Tea Estate and Dhunseri Tea Estate vs. CCE-Dibrugarh. - They contended that amendments to the notification after 2003 should not apply retrospectively to periods before 2003. Tribunal's Observations and Decision: - The Tribunal noted that the eligibility for more than 25% expansion as per clause 3(b) was not challenged by the adjudicating authority, and the Revenue did not appeal against these orders. - However, the Tribunal held that refund claims/statements cannot be filed after any length of time and must be submitted by the 7th of the next month, as specified in clause 2(a) of Notification No. 33/99-CE. - The Tribunal observed that the RT-12 returns filed by the respondents did not contain any claim under Notification No. 33/99-CE, and therefore, could not be considered appropriate statements under clause 2(a). - The Tribunal concluded that the refund claims filed after more than 5 to 6 years are clearly time-barred, and the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, are not applicable to refunds under Notification No. 33/99-CE. - The Tribunal emphasized that a strict interpretation of the exemption notification is required, and any doubt should favor the Revenue, as held in cases like Star Industries vs. C.C. (Imports) Raigad and Meridian Industries Ltd. vs. CCE. Conclusion: The appeals filed by the Revenue were allowed, and the appeal filed by Vernerpur Tea Estate was rejected. The Tribunal held that the refund claims filed after more than 5 to 6 years were time-barred and not admissible under Notification No. 33/99-CE.
|
