2018 (7) TMI 527 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of unutilised CENVAT Credit - Time Limitation - Whether the refund claims filed by the appellant for the period October, 2014 to March,2015, can be said to be within limitation as per Section 11B of the CEA 1944, despite the fact that the same was filed by the appellant on 18/05/2016? - N/N. 27/2012-CX. (N.T.) dated June 18, 2012. Held that - Subsequent upon order dated 08/05/2015 having been received by them on 25/05/2015 which cleared the confusion involved in the matter, the appellant had filed the claims pertaining to the period July, 2014 to March, 2015 (which is subject matter of present Appeal) on 18/05/2016 i.e. within one year of receipt of the order from the Central Excise Authorities for the earlier period - the refund claims filed by the appellant is within limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the CEA, 1944, if the period spent in pursuing remedies before wrongful authorities is excluded. 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 the refund claims for accumulated unutilized Cenvat credit filed by the appellant can be considered within limitation as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 despite being filed after the prescribed period.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) concerning the refund claims for accumulated unutilized Cenvat credit of a specific amount for a particular period. The key issue in this appeal was whether the refund claims filed by the appellant were within the limitation period as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, even though they were submitted after the prescribed time limit. The appellant argued that the claims were filed within the limitation period if the time spent in pursuing remedies before the wrong authorities was excluded. The appellant also contended that a previous order clarified the confusion, leading to the filing of the claims within one year of receiving the said order. Additionally, the appellant challenged the disallowance based on a specific clause of a notification, arguing that it was a restricting clause and not a ground for outright disallowance.

The appellant raised new grounds before the Tribunal for the first time, related to the history of filing claims with different authorities and subsequent directions received. The department contended that these new facts were not presented before the lower authorities, making it necessary to remand the matter for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal refrained from giving a finding on the merits of the case, deciding to remand the issue back to the original authority for de novo adjudication in light of the new facts presented. The Tribunal emphasized providing both parties with a fair opportunity to present their case and evidence during the fresh adjudication process.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, setting aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and instructing the original authority to conduct a fresh assessment of the issues raised. The decision highlighted the importance of fairness and due process in the adjudication of the matter, ensuring that all parties have the opportunity to present their arguments and evidence.