2017 (10) TMI 889 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of duty wrongly paid - rejection of refund on the ground of time limitation - Held that - the Hon ble High Court of Delhi in Arya Exports and Industries 2005 (4) TMI 90 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI has held that The assessee had admittedly submitted the application within the prescribed time and if it suffers from any procedural irregularity the Department was under an obligation to require the assessee to submit the requisite documents - Revenue will examine the refund claim considering it to be filed on 06.12.2010 - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against rejection of refund claim.

Analysis:
The case involves an appeal by Excel Industries Ltd. against the rejection of their refund claim. The appellant initially filed a refund claim on 06.12.2010 regarding duty wrongly paid on 25.06.2010. However, the claim was returned on 20.12.2010 due to missing documents and was refiled on 12.06.2013. The claim was rejected as time-barred based on the filing date of 12.06.2013. The appellants cited various judgments to support their case, while the Ld. AR supported the impugned order.

The tribunal examined the submissions and referred to a judgment by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a similar case. The High Court's judgment highlighted that if a refund claim was initially filed within the prescribed time but with procedural irregularities, the department should request the necessary documents rather than denying the claim. The tribunal concurred with this approach and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal. The tribunal directed the Revenue to reexamine the refund claim as if it was filed on the initial date of 06.12.2010.

In conclusion, the tribunal's decision was based on the principle that a refund claim should not be denied solely on procedural grounds if the claim was initially made within the prescribed time. The case underscores the importance of upholding the rights of the assessee in matters of refund claims and emphasizes the obligation of the department to assist in rectifying procedural irregularities rather than outright rejection.