2017 (12) TMI 377 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of excess excise duty paid - finalisation of provisional assessment - rejection on the ground of time bar - Held that - It is clear that any order or finding of implication of duty liability has to be communicated to the assessee. All limitations will start from the date of knowledge of assessee by due communication by the competent authorities. The relevant date should be taken from the date of communication of the order to the appellant-assessee - the matter is remanded to the original authority to decide the issue of refund on merit, including question to undue enrichment, if any - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Recalling the order and restoring the appeal to its original number.
2. Allowing the change of name application.
3. Examining the appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals-I), Raipur regarding a refund claim for excess excise duty rejected on the ground of time bar.

Analysis:
1. The Tribunal recalled its previous order and restored the appeal to its original number after considering the reasons mentioned in the application. Additionally, a miscellaneous application for a change of name was allowed, and the Registry was directed to take necessary action as per the application.

2. With the consent of both parties, the Tribunal proceeded to examine the appeal itself for disposal. The appeal was lodged against the order of Commissioner (Appeals-I), Raipur, dated 25.08.2014, concerning a refund claim for excess excise duty amounting to ?60,40,906. The claim was rejected on the grounds of being time-barred.

3. The appellant contended that the assessment during the relevant period was provisional due to clearances through a warehouse. The finalization of the provisional assessment by the competent jurisdictional officer was communicated to the appellant on 05.12.2012. The appellant filed a refund claim on 03.12.2013, which was rejected by the lower authorities citing it as beyond the one-year limitation period under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The dispute centered around the computation of limitation in the finalization of the provisional assessment. The Tribunal held that the relevant date for limitation should be from the date of communication of the finalization order to the appellant. Referring to legal precedents, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of communication for starting the limitation period and set aside the impugned order, remanding the matter for a decision on the refund claim's merits.

4. The Tribunal's decision was based on the principle that the date of communication of the finalization order to the appellant is crucial for computing the limitation period. The appellant's argument that the limitation should start from the date of knowledge about finalization, not just the finalization date, was accepted. The Tribunal found no merit in the lower authorities' decision against the appellant and allowed the appeal by remanding the case for further consideration on the refund issue, including the aspect of undue enrichment.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment focused on the importance of communication in determining the limitation period for refund claims related to provisional assessments, emphasizing that the date of communication of finalization orders to the appellant is pivotal.