9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 496 - AT - Central ExciseRefund claim - time limitation - whether provisions of section 11B of CEA are applicable to the amount of refund claim in the present case or not - penalty - HELD THAT - The Show Cause Notice alleges that the application has not met the time line in terms of Section 11B(2) (ec). This provision prescribes the relevant date for refund application as the date of the order which allowed the said refund - Apparently and admittedly the final order of CESTAT which sanctioned the impugned refund is dated 28.11.2016. Thus, this is the relevant date as per sub-clause (ec) of Section 11B CEA wherefrom period of one year had to reckon. The applications of 19.04.2017 is very much within the said time limit. Hence, the finding of holding the application delayed by 10 years is absolutely beyond the scope of Show Cause Notice and wrong as well. The time bar of section 11B cannot be invoked in this case as Section 11 B is applicable to the amount of duty or interest or such similar charges. The amount in question is neither of these liabilities as against the present appellant. It was the demand confirmed against the predecessor of the appellant from whom the appellant has acquired his property. Penalty - HELD THAT - Since the refund of later amount has already been sanctioned, there appears no justification for rejecting the impugned amount of ₹ 3,50,000/-, the balance amount of said penalty imposed upon M/s. Regency Industries. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
Application of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 to a refund claim for a penalty amount, delay in filing the refund claim, and the scope of Show Cause Notice. Analysis: Issue 1: Application of Section 11B of CEA to the refund claim The Tribunal examined whether Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applied to the refund claim of a penalty amount. The facts dated back to 1993 when a demand was made against the predecessor company, and the appellant acquired its assets in 2004. The appellant deposited the outstanding dues and later filed a refund claim. The Tribunal held that the time bar of Section 11B was wrongly invoked as the appellant was not obligated to clear the predecessor's dues. Previous Tribunal orders had already established that the dues paid were refundable, and the refund claim was within the prescribed time limit from the final order allowing the refund. The Tribunal relied on case law and concluded that Section 11B was inapplicable to the penalty amount refund claim. Issue 2: Delay in filing the refund claim The Tribunal addressed the contention of delay in filing the refund claim. The appellant had initially filed a refund claim for a significant amount, which was allowed after legal proceedings. Subsequently, the appellant filed a refund claim for the balance penalty amount. The Tribunal noted that the second refund claim was filed after the initial claim and held that it was not possible to include the balance amount in the previous application. The rejection based on delay was deemed unsustainable as the second claim was within the prescribed time limit from the final order allowing the initial refund claim. Issue 3: Scope of Show Cause Notice The Tribunal analyzed whether the finding of a 10-year delay in the refund claim was beyond the scope of the Show Cause Notice. It determined that the relevant date for the refund application was the date of the final order allowing the refund, not the date of the original demand. The Tribunal concluded that the finding of a 10-year delay was erroneous and beyond the scope of the Show Cause Notice. It emphasized that the rejection based on this ground was unjustified. In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the order under challenge, finding it unsustainable due to ignoring relevant facts and exceeding the scope of the Show Cause Notice. The appeal was allowed, emphasizing that Section 11B did not apply to the penalty amount refund claim, and the delay in filing the claim was within the prescribed time limit from the final order allowing the refund.
|
