2018 (7) TMI 237 - AT - Central Excise

Area Based Exemption - N/N. 33/99-CE dated 08.07.99 - Time limitation - The appellant contended in their appeal that the benefit of area based exemption notification cannot be taken away from the appellant on the ground of limitation as there is no provision regarding limitation in the said notification - Held that - In the present case, the refund claim was filed after more than five years and it is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Vernepur Tea Estate 2016 (4) TMI 17 - CESTAT KOLKATA , where it was held that refund claims, filed after more than 5 to 6 years of such duty payment, are clearly time barred - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Applicability of area-based exemption notification for tea manufacturers
- Claiming benefit under notification No. 33/99-CE
- Rejection of refund claim due to delay in filing
- Interpretation of time limits for filing refund claims under the notification
- Precedent set by the Tribunal in the case of Vernepur Tea Estate

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata dealt with the issues surrounding the applicability of area-based exemption notification for tea manufacturers. The appellants, engaged in tea manufacturing, sought benefits under notification No. 33/99-CE. They applied for exemption from duties after substantial factory expansion, but faced a Show Cause Notice proposing to reject the refund claim of ?47,53,185 due to a delay of over five years in filing. The adjudicating authority and Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the claim, leading to the appellant's appeal.

Upon reviewing the case, the Tribunal noted that the appellant began commercial production post-expansion in 1999. The appellant argued that the exemption could not be denied based on a time limit as the notification did not specify any. However, the Tribunal referenced the Vernepur Tea Estate case, emphasizing the necessity of filing refund claims within prescribed time limits. It highlighted the requirement of filing statements by the 7th of the next month, with refunds to be sanctioned by the 15th. The Tribunal clarified that RT-12 returns without refund claims under the notification were insufficient. It emphasized that delays in filing claims without valid reasons were unjustified, affirming the existence of specific time limits under the notification.

In alignment with the Vernepur Tea Estate ruling, the Tribunal dismissed the appellant's appeal due to the refund claim being filed over five years late. The judgment reinforced the importance of adhering to the prescribed time limits for filing refund claims under the exemption notification, emphasizing that delays beyond the stipulated period are considered time-barred. The decision underscored the significance of timely compliance with procedural requirements to avail of exemptions and refunds, setting a precedent for future cases involving similar issues.