9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (6) TMI 197 - AT - Central ExciseRefund claim - refund rejected as filed beyond the period of limitation - present refund has been filed by the appellant claiming that they have debited the amount for which they have filed the refund claim as directed by the Superintendent - HELD THAT - Both the authorities have held that the refund claim is barred by limitation. The view expressed by the authorities is in line with the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in case of Sansera Engineering Pvt Ltd 2022 (12) TMI 49 - SUPREME COURT where it was held that In the present case, as the respective claims were beyond the period of limitation of one year from the relevant date, the same are rightly rejected by the appropriate authority and the same are rightly confirmed by the High Court. We see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. There are no merits in the appeal filed by the appellant - appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Refund Claim Rejection 2. Limitation Period under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 3. Directions by the Range Superintendent 4. Applicability of Judicial Precedents Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Refund Claim Rejection: The appellant filed a refund claim for the reversal of Cenvat credit on reimported goods, which was rejected by the adjudicating authority and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant argued that the reversal was done under the direction of the Range Superintendent and was not warranted. The refund claim was rejected on the grounds of being filed beyond the prescribed limitation period. 2. Limitation Period under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944: The appellant contended that the limitation period under Section 11B was not applicable to their case, citing decisions from ITC Ltd. and Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd. However, the Revenue argued that the limitation period was indeed applicable, supported by the Supreme Court's decisions in Sansera Engineering Ltd. and Mafatlal Industries Ltd. The Commissioner (Appeals) emphasized that the refund claim was filed under Section 11B, which includes a prescribed limitation period, and the appellant's argument that the payment was not a duty did not hold as they themselves filed the refund under this section. 3. Directions by the Range Superintendent: The appellant claimed that the reversal of Cenvat credit was done based on the Range Superintendent's directions, which they argued was beyond his authority. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the appellant did not protest or verify the authenticity of the debit entries for over two years and only claimed a refund as an afterthought. 4. Applicability of Judicial Precedents: The Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Sansera Engineering Ltd., which clarified that Section 11B's limitation period applies to rebate claims as well. The Tribunal also referenced the Bombay High Court's decision in Andrew Telecom (1) Pvt Ltd., which upheld the application of the limitation period under Section 11B for refund claims. The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's reliance on earlier decisions that suggested otherwise, reinforcing that statutory provisions must be adhered to. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claim, emphasizing that the limitation period under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, was applicable, and the appellant's claim was filed beyond this period. The appellant's argument regarding the Range Superintendent's directions and the nature of the payment was not substantiated. The appeal was thus rejected, aligning with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions.
|
