2009 (11) TMI 380 - AT - Central Excise

Refund- Notification No. 6/2002, dated 1-3-2002- The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Motor Vehicles falling under Chapter Heading No. 8703.00 of the CETA, 1985. The appellants have been rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground of non-fulfilment of the condition of the Notification No. 6/2002, dated 1-3-2002. Held that-rejection of the refund claim (except the amounts have already been reversed being time barred) is not justifiable and hold that the appellant is entitled to get the refund claim (except the refund of Rs. 59,224/-, which is time barred). Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeals are allowed with consequential relief.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claims rejection based on non-fulfilment of conditions under Notification No. 6/2002 and 6/2006 - Substantive and procedural conditions analysis - Interpretation of beneficiary provision - Applicability of Supreme Court ruling on procedural vs. substantive conditions.

Detailed Analysis:

The appeals filed by M/s. Skoda Auto (India) Pvt. Ltd. against Orders-in-Appeal dated 4-8-2008 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad were heard by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Orders-in-Original rejecting refund claims, ordering recovery of irregular credit, interest, and penalties. The appellants are engaged in manufacturing Motor Vehicles falling under Chapter Heading No. 8703.00 of the CETA, 1985. The refund claims were rejected due to non-fulfilment of conditions under Notification No. 6/2002 and 6/2006, specifically related to availing credit of duty paid within six months.

The conditions under the Notifications to avail concessional rate of duty or claim refund were examined, distinguishing between substantive and procedural conditions. The main substantive conditions included full payment of duty, obtaining Taxi Registration within three months, refunding special or basic excise duty to the end customer, and submitting refund claims within six months. Procedural conditions of technical nature included providing intimation of credit availed and verification of refund claim by the department within seven days. The appellants fulfilled substantive conditions but failed to provide intimation of credit availed within six months initially.

The Tribunal observed that the refund of duty under the Notifications is a beneficiary provision and should be interpreted liberally. Referring to the Supreme Court ruling in Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner, it was highlighted that non-observance of procedural conditions is condonable, while substantive conditions must be fulfilled. The benefit of exemption should not be denied if substantive conditions are met, even if procedural conditions are not fully adhered to.

In Appeal No. E/1187/08, the appellants reversed credit and debited interest as the refund claim was filed after six months. The Tribunal held that rejection of refund claims (except for time-barred amounts) was not justifiable. It was concluded that the appellants were entitled to the refund claim, except for the amount deemed time-barred. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief, if any.