2018 (7) TMI 13 - AT - Central Excise

Scope of SCN - the plea about the filing of claims by the appellant before the wrong authority, have been brought on record by the appellant for the first time before this Tribunal and none of the authorities below had the occasion to deal with these new facts - Refund of unutilized CENVAT credit - time limitation - Held that - Since the appellant has raised new grounds before this Tribunal for the first time which needs verification and determination and for that matter the appeal has to be remanded back to the original authority for denovo adjudication of the issues raised in the light of new facts - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved: Whether refund claims for accumulated unutilized Cenvat credit filed by the appellant are within the limitation period as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed challenging the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the refund claims for accumulated unutilized Cenvat credit. The key issue was whether the refund claims filed by the appellant within the period April, 2012 to March, 2013, amounting to ?14,39,094, were within the limitation period prescribed by Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

2. The appellant argued that their refund claims for the period 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 were initially filed with the wrong authority, the Development Commissioner Office, which led to delays. Subsequently, after receiving clarification, they filed the claims within the prescribed time limit. The appellant contended that the claims for the period in question were filed within one year of receiving the order from the Central Excise Authorities for the earlier period, thus falling within the limitation period of Section 11B.

3. The appellant further contended that the disallowance of the refund claims by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on a specific clause of Notification No. 27/2012-CE(NT) was improper. They argued that the clause in question only limited the amount of the refund claim and did not authorize its complete disallowance. The appellant sought relief based on these arguments before the Tribunal.

4. The department, represented by the Authorized Representative, supported the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and highlighted that the appellant raised new grounds and facts before the Tribunal, which were not addressed by the lower authorities. The department emphasized that the appellant's new submissions required verification and determination, necessitating a remand for fresh adjudication.

5. The Tribunal, acknowledging the new grounds raised by the appellant, decided to remand the matter back to the original authority for de novo adjudication. The Tribunal refrained from giving a final decision on the merits of the case and left the issues open to be argued before the Adjudicating Authority during the fresh assessment. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of providing both parties with a fair opportunity to present their case and evidence during the remand proceedings.

6. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, setting aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and directing a fresh adjudication of the issues raised. The Tribunal's decision aimed to ensure a thorough examination of the new facts and submissions brought forward by the appellant, emphasizing the need for a fair and comprehensive assessment of the refund claims for accumulated unutilized Cenvat credit.