2025 (1) TMI 533 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of unutilized cenvat credit accumulated on inputs and input services used in the export of final products - rejection on the grounds of non-submission of some relevant documents for processing the refund claim - applicability of time limitation - claim was filed belatedly beyond one year as stipulated under law. Time Limitation - HELD THAT - Indisputably it is an admitted fact that the original refund claim filed was returned to the appellant. When the prevailing instructions itself according to the Appellate authority requires that submission of refund claims without supporting documents is not to be allowed, the factum of its return presupposes its filing with supporting documents, albeit later found to be of incomplete nature. Thus, the reliance placed by the learned appellate authority on the decision in MALWA COTTON SPINNING MILLS LTD. VERSUS CCE, LUDHIANA 2013 (5) TMI 318 - CESTAT NEW DELHI is misplaced which even otherwise was a case was on interest liability and not on limitation. This Tribunal, in M/S ABHEDYA INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER C.C.E ST, HYDERABAD-III (VECE-VERSA) 016 (7) TMI 1113 - CESTAT HYDERABAD , has held the law to be settled that that the date of initial submission of the refund claim shall be the actual date of submission for the purpose of limitation under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 and not the date of resubmission. This Tribunal in its decision in M/S. CHENNAI PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF G.S.T. CENTRAL EXCISE 2019 (6) TMI 189 - CESTAT CHENNAI has followed the Gujarat High Court decision in United Phosphorous v UOI, supra and has held that when the refund sanctioning authority who received the original refund claims has not rejected these refund claims on merits and has merely returned the same, further filing of the refund claims ought to be considered only as resubmission and not as fresh claims. Conclusion - The date of the original submission of a refund claim is the relevant date for determining the timeliness under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The refund claim filed by the Appellant is to be taken as filed on 23.11.2012, the date on which the original refund claim was acknowledged as received by the Department. Appeal allowed.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:

Whether the refund claim filed by the appellant was time-barred under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and the relevant notifications and provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Whether the date of the original submission or the date of resubmission of the refund claim should be considered for determining the timeliness of the claim.
Whether the returning of the refund claim by the Assistant Commissioner due to alleged deficiencies was permissible under the law.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Timeliness of the Refund Claim

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The appellant's refund claim was initially rejected as time-barred under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and Notification No. 5/2006 CE (NT) dated 14.03.2006, read with Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal referenced precedents such as Abhedya Industries Ltd v CCE & ST, Hyderabad-III and Balmer Lawrie & Co v CCE, Kolkata-VI, which established that the date of the original submission should be considered for limitation purposes.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal determined that the original submission date should be the relevant date for assessing the timeliness of the refund claim. The court emphasized that the returning of the claim was not a valid procedure under the law.
Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal found that the appellant's original claim was acknowledged on 23.11.2012, and any deficiencies should have been addressed without returning the claim.
Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the legal principle that the original submission date is the relevant date for determining the timeliness of the claim, thus ruling that the claim was not time-barred.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal dismissed the respondent's argument that the claim was time-barred, citing established legal precedents that supported the appellant's position.
Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the refund claim was not time-barred, and the original submission date should be considered for limitation purposes.

Issue 2: Legality of Returning the Refund Claim

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Tribunal referenced the decision in United Phosphorous Ltd v Union of India, which held that returning a refund claim is not contemplated by the provisions of the Central Excise Act or its rules.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal reasoned that the Assistant Commissioner was obliged to make an order on the merits of the refund application rather than returning it.
Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal noted that the refund claim was returned without a formal rejection, which was contrary to the statutory obligations of the Assistant Commissioner.
Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the legal principle that returning a refund claim without a decision on its merits is improper and not supported by the law.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal rejected the respondent's justification for returning the claim, aligning with the appellant's argument that it was not permissible under the law.
Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the act of returning the refund claim was unlawful, and the claim should have been processed based on its original submission date.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: The Tribunal quoted, "The course adopted by the Assistant Commissioner, of returning the claim application without making an order thereon amounts to refusal to perform the statutory duty imposed on him to consider the application and make an order thereof, in accordance with law."
Core Principles Established: The Tribunal established that the date of the original submission of a refund claim is the relevant date for determining the timeliness under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Additionally, it held that returning a refund claim is not a permissible action under the law.
Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities, ruling that the refund claim was not time-barred and should be processed on its merits based on the original submission date of 23.11.2012.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned orders and remitting the matter back to the jurisdictional adjudicating authority to process the refund claim on its merits.

← Previous Next →