2017 (9) TMI 341 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - Area Based Exemption - extension of the installation capacity - N/N. 33/99 dated 8/7/1999 - denial of refund on the ground that the claim was availed after a period of six years from the date from which respondent became eligible - Held that - the identical issue came up before the Tribunal in the case of Vernerpur Tea Estate Vs. Commr. of Central Excise & Service Tax Shillong 2016 (4) TMI 17 - CESTAT KOLKATA where it was held that refund claims filed after more than 5 to 6 years of such duty payment are clearly time barred - refund rightly rejected - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim under Notification No.33/99 - Time limit for filing refund claim - Interpretation of Notification provisions - Applicability of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Judicial precedents on interpretation of exemption notifications.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal against the disallowance of a refund claim under Notification No.33/99 dated 8/7/1999 due to being filed after six years from eligibility. The Tribunal analyzed the issue of whether refund claims filed after a significant delay are admissible under the notification. The Tribunal referred to a previous case and observed that the filing of a separate statement under the notification should be considered a procedural requirement only. The Tribunal highlighted the provisions of Clauses 2 and 3 of the notification, emphasizing the requirement of filing a statement by the 7th of the next month to claim a refund. The Tribunal concluded that specific time limits are prescribed under the notification for filing refund statements, and claims filed after 5 to 6 years of duty payment are time-barred.

The Tribunal also addressed the argument regarding the interpretation of exemption notifications. It discussed the principle of strict interpretation of exemption notifications, citing judicial precedents. The Tribunal emphasized that beneficial notifications should be liberally interpreted in favor of the assessees. However, in the present case, the mandatory condition of claiming a refund by the 7th of the next month under the notification was considered non-negotiable. The Tribunal held that RT-12 returns cannot be accepted as appropriate statements under the notification if they do not specify a claim for refund of duty paid through PLA.

Furthermore, the Tribunal referred to a case law emphasizing the strict construction of exemption notifications and the principle that any doubt in interpretation should benefit the Revenue. By aligning with previous decisions, the Tribunal dismissed the appellant's appeal, affirming the order passed by the adjudicating authority. The judgment underscores the significance of adhering to the prescribed time limits and conditions specified in exemption notifications for claiming refunds, highlighting the need for strict compliance with procedural requirements to avail benefits under such notifications.