2017 (7) TMI 792 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - Rule 5 of the CCR, 2004 read with N/N. 27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012 - rejection on the ground of time limitation - Section 11B of the CEA, 1944 - Held that - while entertaining the refund claim filed by the appellant, the same was rejected as time barred because the refund claim was required to be filed within one year of the date of export. In fact, the adjudicating authority is required to ascertain the date on which the goods have been exported and corresponding date of filing the refund claim and if the refund claim is filed within time limit prescribed under the Act of the date of export as defined under Section 11B of the Act, in that circumstances, the refund claim cannot be rejected as time barred. The fact is to be ascertained by the adjudicating authority on production of relevant documents by the respondent - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012 - Time bar under Section 11B of the Customs Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The appeal pertains to the allowance of refund claims by the respondent, which the Revenue challenges as time-barred under Section 11B of the Customs Excise Act, 1944. The respondent filed refund claims totaling &8377; 41,30,300/- for clearances made between April 2014 to March 2015. Show cause notices were issued due to missing documents, and the claim was deemed time-barred upon adjudication. The Commissioner (A) later allowed the refund claim, leading to the Revenue's appeal. The Revenue contends that the claims are beyond the limitation period specified in Section 11B.

The Appellate Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both parties. The Revenue relied on a Madras High Court decision, asserting that the refund claims are time-barred. In contrast, the respondent's counsel cited a Tribunal decision stating that refund claims must be filed quarterly, within a year of the quarter's end. The Tribunal noted that under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, refund claims must be filed before the expiry of the date specified in Section 11B.

The Tribunal referred to the Madras High Court decision, emphasizing the importance of filing refund applications within the period prescribed by Section 11B. The relevant date for determining the time-bar of refund claims is crucial. The Tribunal highlighted the statutory definition of the relevant date under Section 11B, outlining various scenarios for different types of goods and transactions.

The Tribunal concluded that the refund claim rejection was based on an incorrect interpretation of the time limit for filing. The adjudicating authority should establish the actual date of export and the corresponding refund claim filing date to determine compliance with Section 11B. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the adjudicating authority for a proper assessment based on the statutory provisions.

In summary, the Tribunal set aside the initial order and directed a reevaluation by the adjudicating authority to ascertain whether the refund claims were indeed time-barred as per the provisions of Section 11B of the Act.