2024 (1) TMI 515 - AT - Central Excise

Rejection of refund claim, claimed in terms of N/N. 33/99 CE dated 08/07/99 - Time Limitation - denial of refund on the ground that filing of statement within 7 days of the next month in which the duty has been paid from the account current, is a mandatory requirement which must be complied with by the appellant to claim the refund - HELD THAT - The Board has clarified vide letter No.354/8/98-CE TRU (Part- II) dated 06/10/1999 that the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are not applicable in case of refunds claimed under Notification 33/99-CE dated 08/07/99. The coordinated Bench of Guwahati has held in the case of M/s M.K.Jokai Agri Plantations (P) Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Dibrugarh 2018 (9) TMI 566 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT that the refunds filed under Notification 33/99-CE dated 08/07/99 cannot be denied on the ground of limitation. Thus, refund claims cannot be denied on the ground of limitation, if the appellant is otherwise entitled for the claim. The question of 25% of expansion by the appellant within the stipulated date was examined by the department and later satisfied that the appellant has made 25% of expansion in the installed capacity within the stipulated date. Thus, the Appellant could not have filed the refund application till confirmation of the substantial expansion condition by the department. However, the Appellant has filed RT-12 returns regularly wherein they have categorically mentioned the duty paid by them from the account current. It is observed that the details disclosed in the RT-12 return would be sufficient to fulfill the Clause 2(a) of the Notification 33/99-CE dated 08/07/99. Also, substantial benefit like refund cannot be denied on account of procedural infirmities. Since, the Appellant has fulfilled the procedural requirement as mentioned in Clause 2(a) of Notification 33/99-CE dated 08/07/99, the refund applications filed by the appellant cannot be rejected on the procedural grounds of non compliance of Clause 2(a) of notification 33/99-CE dated 08/07/99. The appellant has fulfilled both the condition as required under the notification 33/99 -CE dated 08/07/99. Accordingly, the appellant is eligible for the refund and hence we set aside the impugned order rejecting the refund claims - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The eligibility of refund claim filed by the appellant under Notification 33/99-CE dated 08/07/99 is the primary issue in the present appeal.

Summary:
The appellant, a tea manufacturer in Assam, filed refund claims totaling Rs.42,88,600/- for Tea and Tea waste manufactured and cleared between 8/99 to February 2003, under Notification 33/99-CE. The Assistant Commissioner initially sanctioned the refund claims, but the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the department's appeal against it. The appellant appealed against this decision, arguing that the time limit under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 does not apply to their case, and procedural delays should not deny them the refund.

The Tribunal noted that under Notification 33/99-CE, the time limit for filing refund claims is not applicable, as clarified by the Board. Previous decisions by CESTAT Kolkata and the Guwahati High Court supported this interpretation. The key procedural requirement under the notification was filing a statement of duty paid by the 7th of the next month, which the appellant did not strictly adhere to. However, they regularly filed RT-12 returns indicating duty payments, fulfilling the essence of the requirement.

The Guwahati High Court's decision in another case emphasized the mandatory nature of filing statements within the specified time frame. Still, the Tribunal distinguished that case from the present one, where the appellant's compliance with the spirit of the requirement was evident. As the appellant met the expansion and filing conditions under the notification, the Tribunal held them eligible for the refund and set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, upholding the Assistant Commissioner's orders.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the sanctioning of the refund claims, emphasizing that substantial benefits like refunds should not be denied due to procedural technicalities.