9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 1114 - AT - Central ExciseRefund claim - time limitation - Service of notice - Notice sent by the Tribunal presumably has been served as it has not been returned - Held that - identical issue has come 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 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 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of Revenue.
Issues:
1. Admissibility of refund claims filed after more than 5 years from the date of payment of duty under Notification No. 33/99-C.E. 2. Interpretation of the provisions of Notification No. 33/99-C.E. regarding the time limit for filing refund claims. 3. Application of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to refunds under Notification No. 33/99-C.E. 4. Liberal vs. strict interpretation of exemption notifications in favor of the assessee. Admissibility of Refund Claims: The case involved a dispute over the admissibility of refund claims filed after more than 5 years from the date of payment of duty under Notification No. 33/99-C.E. The Tribunal examined whether such delayed refund claims were permissible under the law based on the specific provisions of the notification and relevant case laws. The Tribunal considered arguments from both the Revenue and the respondents/assessees regarding the format and timing of filing refund claims, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the prescribed procedures under the notification. Interpretation of Notification Provisions: The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of Notification No. 33/99-C.E., particularly clauses 2 and 3, to determine the requirements for filing refund claims within the specified time limits. The Tribunal highlighted the significance of submitting a statement of duty paid by the 7th of the next month, as outlined in the notification. The decision emphasized the need for a specific claim for refund in the statement filed under the notification, whether in the prescribed format or through RT-12 returns, to be eligible for consideration by the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner. Application of Section 11B: The Tribunal addressed the applicability of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to refunds under Notification No. 33/99-C.E. The decision clarified that the time limits prescribed under the notification governed the refund claims and that the provisions of Section 11B did not apply to such refunds. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of adhering to the specific monthly time limits set forth in the notification for filing refund statements. Liberal vs. Strict Interpretation: The judgment delved into the debate between a liberal and strict interpretation of exemption notifications in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal considered relevant case laws, including those from the Apex Court, to determine the appropriate approach to interpreting the conditions and requirements of the exemption notification. The decision emphasized the need to fulfill the mandatory conditions of the notification, such as claiming the refund of duty by the specified deadline, without allowing for liberal interpretations that deviate from the prescribed procedures. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the department, setting aside the Order-in-Appeal and emphasizing the importance of adhering to the specific time limits and procedures outlined in Notification No. 33/99-C.E. for filing refund claims to avoid being time-barred. The judgment underscored the significance of complying with the statutory provisions and the specific requirements of exemption notifications to determine the admissibility of refund claims.
|
