2018 (2) TMI 1668 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of CENVAT credit and penalty paid during the course of adjudication/appellate proceedings - denial on the ground of Time Limitation - Section 11B of CEA, 1944 - Held that - the order of the Tribunal was passed on 01.06.2012 and communicated to the appellant on 14.06.2012. The appellant thereafter wrote a letter to the department to re-credit/refund of the amount deposited during the course of proceedings before various forums. Undisputedly in response to the said claim, the department directed the appellant to file it under the proper proforma - the contention that the claim filed second time in proper proforma which was initially returned by the department, would be barred by limitation, is not tenable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against rejection of refund claim as barred by limitation under Section 11B of CEA, 1944.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the rejection of a refund claim by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the grounds of limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant had become eligible for a refund of Cenvat credit and penalty paid during adjudication/appellate proceedings. The appellant initially claimed the refund by letter dated 07.06.2013, enclosing relevant documents, but the department responded that the claim was not filed in the proper format. Subsequently, the appellant filed the refund claim in the prescribed proforma on 03.02.2014. A show cause notice was issued proposing rejection of the claim due to limitation. The refund claim was rejected as barred by limitation, leading to the present appeal.

The appellant's representative argued that the refund claim was filed within one year from the date of receipt of the order, hence not barred by limitation. It was contended that the claim, initially filed on 07.06.2013 and later re-filed in the prescribed proforma, was within the one-year period from the date of the order. On the other hand, the Revenue's representative supported the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals).

The Tribunal noted that the order was passed on 01.06.2012 and communicated to the appellant on 14.06.2012. The appellant subsequently requested a refund of the amount deposited during the proceedings. Despite the initial claim being returned by the department for not being in the proper proforma, the appellant re-filed the claim as directed. The Tribunal held that the re-filing of the claim in the proper proforma, within the one-year period from the date of the order, should not be considered barred by limitation. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief as per law.