9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 246 - AT - Central ExciseRefund claim - reversal of CENVAT credit availed - Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - rejection on the ground of time limitation - re-credit on returned goods. Held that - Section 11B of the Act 1944 provides that any person, claiming refund of any duty of excise and interest, if any, paid on such duty, may make an application for refund of such amount to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, before expiry of one year from the relevant date. Section 11B(5)(B) (f) provides that the relevant date means the date of payment of duty - In the present case, the appellant claimed the refund of the amount as debited from their RG 23A Part-I & Part-II Account as on 04.09.2010. Therefore, the appellant filed the refund claim within the stipulated period under the provisions of law. The Tribunal in the case of Mothersons Sumi Systems Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida 2006 (8) TMI 75 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI observed that anywhere any amount wrongly credited, department cannot reduce refund on the ground that it is not provided under the statutory provisions of Refund. The appellant erroneously debited the amount from their RG-23A Part-II account and on the basis of the direction of the officers who conducted the Audit. The appellant filed applications for refund/return of the amount on 20.04.2011 as per directions of the Assistant Commissioner by letter dated 29.12.2010. In such situation there is no reason to reject the refund claim. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Refund claims under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Applicability of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 3. Re-credit of amounts erroneously debited. 4. Time limitations for filing refund claims. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Refund Claims under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944: The appellants filed refund claims for amounts erroneously debited from their Cenvat account. The adjudicating authority rejected these claims, and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the current appeals. The appellant argued that the amounts debited were not duties but erroneous debits and thus should be refunded. The Tribunal examined whether these amounts fall under the purview of Section 11B, which allows for refund claims of duties and interest paid. 2. Applicability of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004: The appellants cleared exempted goods and debited 10% of their value as per Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, following the instructions of the Central Excise Revenue Audit team. They later sought to re-credit this amount, claiming it was erroneously debited. The Tribunal considered whether such debits and subsequent re-credits are governed by Rule 6 and whether the appellant followed the correct procedures. 3. Re-credit of Amounts Erroneously Debited: The Tribunal noted that the appellants re-credited the debited amounts based on the audit team's instructions and subsequently reversed this credit. The Tribunal referenced case laws, including decisions from the Tribunal and High Courts, which supported the view that erroneous debits could be re-credited without needing a refund order or permission from authorities. The Tribunal emphasized that such re-credits are not refunds of duty but corrections of accounting entries. 4. Time Limitations for Filing Refund Claims: The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the refund claims partly on the grounds of being time-barred, noting that the claims were filed more than three and a half years after the goods were removed. However, the Tribunal found that the relevant date for calculating the time limit should be the date of the erroneous debit (04.09.2010), not the date of goods removal. Since the refund claims were filed within one year from this relevant date, they were deemed timely. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the appellants erroneously debited the amounts based on incorrect audit instructions and were entitled to re-credit these amounts. The refund claims were filed within the stipulated period under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeals, granting the refund claims. Pronouncement: The decision was pronounced in the open court on 09.05.2018.
|
