2018 (7) TMI 1775 - AT - Central Excise

Principles of Natural Justice - Refund claim - Sub-rule (3A) of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - refund rejected on the ground of limitation - Held that - The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not given any finding on said submissions covered by para-9 of written submission filed before him. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) should have considered all submissions before him and given his decision on acceptance or rejection grounds raised before him - the impugned order set aside and matter remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to consideration of said submissions under said para-9 and any other submission and give a reasoned order - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim rejection on the grounds of limitation.
2. Failure of the Commissioner (Appeals) to consider all submissions before making a decision.

Analysis:
Issue 1: The appeal arose from an Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) concerning a refund claim of ?39,78,832 debited by the appellant in their Cenvat Account under Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for the period from 2009-10 to 2013-14. The claim was initially reversed under Sub-rule (3A) of Rule 6. The appellant challenged the demand raised against them, which was ultimately quashed by the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad. Subsequently, the appellant sought a refund of the debited amount, but the claim was rejected on the grounds of limitation by the original authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) also upheld the rejection. The appellant then appealed to the Tribunal, arguing that similar circumstances in a subsequent period led to a refund being granted by the Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal found the Commissioner (Appeals) did not address the submissions made by the appellant, specifically those in para-9 of the written submission. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a reasoned decision on the submissions.

Issue 2: The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to provide any findings on the submissions made by the appellant in para-9 of the written submission. It was emphasized that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have considered all submissions before rendering a decision on the acceptance or rejection of the grounds raised before him. Due to this failure, the Tribunal deemed the impugned order to be unsustainable. As a result, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, directing the Commissioner (Appeals) to thoroughly consider the submissions made by the appellant and any other relevant submissions before issuing a reasoned order. The case records were carefully reviewed, highlighting the importance of addressing all arguments presented before reaching a decision.