2017 (10) TMI 953 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - rejection on the ground that the appellant for the month of March 2011 filed refund twice - Held that - the filing of refund claim once in a month or as the case may be in a quarter is procedural requirement and to avoid the multiple refund. However just because of the reason that two refund claims were filed for one particular period, refund cannot be rejected - The sanctioning authority at most should verify that by filing the second refund claim whether any excess amount is claimed by the assessee - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No.5/2006-C.E. (N.T.) for filing multiple claims in a month.

Analysis:
The appellant's refund claim under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was rejected by the adjudicating authority for filing two claims in a month, contrary to the condition in Notification No.5/2006-C.E. (N.T.). The first claim for March 2011 was filed on 9.12.2011, followed by a second claim on 2.4.2012. Similarly, for April 2011, the first claim was filed on 2.4.2012, and the second claim on 16.4.2012. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection, leading to the appellant's appeal before the tribunal.

The appellant argued that although the claims were filed twice in a month, they were within the one-year time limit specified in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant contended that the monthly filing requirement is procedural, and denial of substantial refund benefits for a procedural breach is unjustified. The appellant highlighted that other conditions like credit accumulation and goods export were met, citing relevant judgments supporting their stance.

On the other hand, the Revenue representative emphasized strict compliance with notification conditions to prevent misuse and fraudulent benefits. The Revenue argued that the monthly filing rule ensures accurate refund calculations based on the prescribed formula, preventing ambiguity in determining the correct refund amount.

After considering both arguments, the tribunal found that the rejection was solely based on the multiple filings within a month, without any other allegations. The tribunal viewed the monthly filing as a procedural requirement to prevent multiple refunds but noted that mere multiple filings should not automatically result in rejection. The tribunal suggested that the sanctioning authority should verify if any excess amount was claimed in the second filing and adjust the refund accordingly. Relying on judgments supporting the appellant's position, the tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, granting the adjudicating authority the liberty to verify all other aspects before refund sanctioning.