2018 (2) TMI 1669 - 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 11.05.2012 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 by Commissioner (Appeals) on grounds of limitation under Section 11B of CEA, 1944.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the rejection of a refund claim by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the 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 through a letter dated 07.06.2013, but the department responded that the claim was not filed properly. Subsequently, the appellant filed the refund claim on 03.02.2014 in the prescribed proforma. A show cause notice was issued proposing rejection of the claim due to limitation. The refund claim was ultimately rejected as barred by limitation, leading to the filing of the present appeal.

The appellant argued that the refund claim was lodged within one year from the date of receipt of the order, thus not being barred by limitation. The appellant contended that the second filing of the claim in the prescribed proforma, as directed by the department, was essentially a re-submission of the same documents initially filed, and therefore, the claim was within the permissible time limit. On the other hand, the Revenue supported the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the rejection of the refund claim.

The Tribunal noted that the order was passed on 11.05.2012 and communicated to the appellant on 14.06.2012. Subsequently, the appellant requested a refund of the amount deposited during the proceedings, which led to the department directing the appellant to file the claim in the proper proforma. The Tribunal found that the claim filed for the second time in the proper proforma, which was initially returned by the department, 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 the law.

This judgment highlights the importance of procedural compliance in filing refund claims and the interpretation of limitation periods under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal's decision emphasizes the circumstances under which a claim, even if re-filed, may not be considered time-barred if it aligns with the prescribed procedures and timelines.