2000 (8) TMI 191 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Appeal against rejection of refund claim due to lack of proper authorization u/s 35E(2) and delay in filing prescribed format refund claim.

Issue 1: Lack of proper authorization u/s 35E(2)
The Appellate Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue on the ground of no proper authorization by the Commissioner u/s 35E(2). Despite the Revenue's contention of authorization being given on file, no evidence of such authorization was presented. The Tribunal found no merits in the Revenue's appeal due to the absence of proper authorization.

Issue 2: Delay in filing prescribed format refund claim
The Asstt. Commissioner allowed an adjustment of excess cess paid by the respondents on finalization of RT-12 returns u/r 173-I. The Revenue objected to the delay in filing the proper refund claim in prescribed format, even though the original claim was timely. The Tribunal agreed with the Asstt. Commissioner that the first refund claim staking, even if not in proper format, should be considered for limitation purposes. The Asstt. Commissioner also noted that the refund claim was made before finalization of assessments u/r 173-I, justifying the adjustment. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection of the appeal by the Revenue, emphasizing the lack of proper authorization u/s 35E(2) and dismissing the appeal.

This judgment highlights the importance of complying with prescribed formats for refund claims and the necessity of proper authorization u/s 35E(2) in appeals. The decision underscores the significance of timely and correctly formatted refund claims in tax matters, as well as the requirement for clear authorization for appeals to be considered valid.