2008 (10) TMI 190 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim by the buyer / purchaser of goods period of limitation - There is no dispute that the respondents had filed the refund claims initially on 4-12-02 with the department and that they were returned to them for resubmitting them with certain original documents. There is also no dispute that the respondents had purchased the DC motors under sale invoices raised by WIL on them arid that the dates of these invoices were considered by the Commissioner (A) to find that the respondents had filed the refund claims in time. As per Section 11B(5)(e) of the CEA, the relevant date to compute one year period for filing claim for refund of excess paid duty where the claim is made by the buyer of the goods is the date of purchase of the goods by such buyer. The Commissioner (A) has held the impugned refund claims to have been filed in time strictly in terms of the relevant statutory provisions as discussed above. Refund allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim of excess duty paid on purchase of DC Motors.
2. Barred by limitation - Date of filing refund claims.
3. Relevant date for filing refund claims.
4. Completeness of refund claims filed.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a refund claim by M/s. Supreme Renewable Energy Ltd. for excess duty paid on the purchase of DC Motors from M/s. Integrated Electric Company Pvt. Ltd. through M/s. Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. The total claimed amount was Rs. 2,24,000/- covered under three separate invoices. The original authority found the refund claims beyond the one-year limitation period from the date of invoice covering the goods' clearance by the manufacturer. On appeal, the Commissioner (A) determined that only one claim was time-barred, while the other two were filed within the limitation period specified under Section 11B(5)(e) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (CEA).

2. The Revenue contended that the relevant date for filing the refund claims should be the date of the invoice raised by Integrated Electric Company Pvt. Ltd. to Walchandnagar Industries Ltd., not the date when Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. raised the sale invoice on Supreme Renewable Energy Ltd. Another ground raised was that the refund claims were initially filed incompletely on 4-12-02 and were later resubmitted after rectifying the omissions. The Commissioner (A) was criticized for considering the initial submission date as the filing date of the refund claims.

3. The Tribunal considered the submissions of both parties and reviewed the case records. It was established that the refund claims were initially submitted on 4-12-02 and were returned for resubmission with additional original documents. The Tribunal noted that the relevant date for computing the one-year period for filing refund claims by the buyer of goods is the date of purchase of the goods. In this case, the sale invoices raised by Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. on Supreme Renewable Energy Ltd. were crucial in determining the timely filing of the refund claims as per Section 11B(5)(e) of the CEA.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (A)'s decision, affirming that the refund claims were filed within the prescribed time limit based on the correct interpretation of the statutory provisions. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the relevant legal provisions for filing refund claims and rejected the Revenue's contentions regarding the relevant dates and completeness of the claims filed.