2021 (5) TMI 383 - AT - Central Excise

Grant of interest on delayed refund - appeal dismissed as being time barred - HELD THAT - Considering the fact that the claim of interest was not whispered in the order dt. 11.04.2018 of the adjudicating authority, against which the appellant moved an application for payment of interest on 07.05.2019 and it was answered on 29.08.2019; therefore, the intimation/letter dated 29.08.2019 is an appealable order before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Against the said order, the appellant has filed an appeal before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) on 31.10.2019 which is well within the time limit prescribed under the Act. The appeal filed by the appellant before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is in time. Therefore, the impugned order qua holding that the appeal is time barred is set aside - Matter remanded back to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the issue on merit following judicial pronouncements on the issue - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
Appeal against dismissal as time-barred, claim for interest on delayed refund, appealable order, time limit for filing appeal, entertaining issue on merit, remand for decision within 90 days.

Analysis:

1. Dismissal as Time-Barred:
The appellant appealed against an order dismissing their appeal as time-barred by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant had applied for a refund with interest, which was sanctioned on a specific date without mentioning interest. Subsequently, the appellant requested interest on delayed refund, and the adjudicating authority responded that the interest issue was settled in the initial order. The appellant then filed an appeal before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) within the prescribed time limit. The Tribunal held that the appeal was filed in time as the intimation dated 29.08.2019 was an appealable order, and the appeal filed on 31.10.2019 was within the statutory time limit, overturning the time-barred decision.

2. Claim for Interest on Delayed Refund:
The Tribunal noted that the adjudicating authority did not mention interest in the initial order sanctioning the refund. As the appellant subsequently requested interest on the delayed refund, the Tribunal found that the issue of interest was not settled in the original order. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the issue on merit based on judicial pronouncements within 90 days of the order, emphasizing the importance of addressing the interest claim along with the refund matter.

3. Entertaining Issue on Merit and Remand:
The Tribunal observed that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) did not address the issue on merit, necessitating a remand of the matter back to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on the substantive issue of interest on the delayed refund. The Tribunal instructed the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the matter within a specified timeframe of 90 days from the receipt of the order, highlighting the need for a thorough examination of the issue based on relevant legal precedents.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the time-barred decision, allowed the appeal to proceed, directed a review of the interest claim on the delayed refund, and mandated a timely decision on the matter by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The judgment emphasized the importance of addressing all aspects of a refund claim, including interest, and ensuring timely and comprehensive adjudication of appeals.