2018 (9) TMI 244 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of accumulated CENVAT credit - filing of single refund application for 6 months (half year) instead of each quarter - N/N. 27/2012-CE(NT) dated 18.6.2012 - Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that - Though the condition of the notification stipulates that separate refund claims required to be filed for each quarter, however, the appellant had filed a consolidated refund claim for two quarters at the end of six months mentioning their eligibility for each of the quarter. There is no other allegation of violation of any other condition of the notification to make them ineligible for the claim - Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against order-in-appeal passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune regarding refund claims under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
- Compliance with conditions of Notification No.27/2012-CE(NT) dated 18.6.2012.
- Filing of consolidated refund claim for two quarters instead of separate quarterly claims.
- Reconciliation of eligibility for refund of accumulated cenvat credit for each quarter.
- Allegations of violation of notification conditions.
- Admissibility of refund claims under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis:
The appeal pertains to a case where the appellant, engaged in manufacturing corrugated boxes, filed refund claims for two quarters in 2016 totaling ?10,85,735 under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The adjudicating authority sanctioned the refund, but the Revenue appealed, leading to the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the appeal. The appellant argued compliance with Notification No.27/2012-CE(NT) and reconciliation of eligibility for each quarter's refund. The Revenue reiterated the Commissioner's findings. The Tribunal noted the appellant's filing of a consolidated refund claim for two quarters instead of separate claims, finding a minor difference of ?317 if certain conditions of the notification were considered.

The Tribunal acknowledged the requirement for separate quarterly refund claims as per the notification but observed that the appellant reconciled the eligibility for each quarter in the consolidated claim. No other violations were alleged, making the appellant eligible for most of the claimed amount. The Tribunal found the appellant ineligible for only ?317 due to specific conditions. The impugned order was modified to exclude this amount, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly. The appellant agreed to deposit the ?317 with interest, ensuring compliance with the decision.