2017 (10) TMI 842 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of the excise duty paid on steel and cement used in construction of such houses - Denial on the ground that the refund claim for the period 1.10.2005 to 31.12.2005 was filed beyond the period of 120 days as mentioned in N/N. 32/2005 - Held that - As per clause (c) of the exemption Notification, the refund claim has to be filed within 60 days at the end of the relevant quarter and such period may be extended by the jurisdictional Excise officer by another 60 days. The purpose of exemption was refund of duty paid on cement and steel used in construction for houses for Tsunami affected people which is a Notification issued in public interest. The view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) that strict adherence to the time limit for filing refund claims in such notification would result in adversely affecting thereby defeating the very purpose of the notification has to be agreed upon in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. Refund allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Time limit for filing refund claims under Notification No. 32/2005-CE.
2. Admissibility of refund claims for construction of houses for Tsunami victims.
3. Jurisdictional Excise officer's authority to extend the filing period.
4. Commissioner (Appeals) discretion in granting refund claims.
5. Interpretation of exemption notification in public interest.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a public charitable society undertaking charitable activities, entrusted by the Government to build houses for Tsunami victims. The society filed refund claims for excise duty paid on steel and cement used in construction, as per Notification No. 32/2005-CE. The original authority rejected the claims due to late filing beyond the specified 120-day period, while the Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this decision and directed the sanction of eligible refund claims.

2. The Appellant argued that the refund claim for October-December 2005 was filed beyond the 120-day limit specified in the Notification, and the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the claim without legal basis. The Respondent contended that only one claim was delayed, while others were within the time limit. The Respondent complied with all conditions and produced necessary certificates, justifying the Commissioner's decision to grant the refund.

3. The Tribunal noted that the exemption Notification required refund claims to be filed within 60 days at the end of the relevant quarter, extendable by another 60 days by the Excise officer. The Commissioner (Appeals) took a lenient view considering the purpose of the exemption for Tsunami-affected people's housing construction. Strict adherence to time limits could defeat the notification's purpose, leading to the Tribunal upholding the Commissioner's decision to grant the refund claims.

4. The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner's interpretation that strict time limits for filing refund claims under the exemption notification, in this case, would be counterproductive to the public interest objective of the notification. Given the circumstances and purpose of the exemption, the Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the Commissioner's decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

5. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision to grant the refund claims, emphasizing the public interest aspect of the exemption notification and the need for a flexible approach in such cases to ensure the intended benefits reach the affected parties efficiently.