2001 (7) TMI 345 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
Whether the two refund claims of Modvat credit of duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of goods exported out of India are within the time-limits specified in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Time-limit for filing refund claims

The appellants, M/s. Arya Export and Industries, filed two appeals concerning refund claims of Modvat credit of duty paid on inputs used in manufacturing goods for export. The primary contention was whether the refund claims were filed within the time limits specified in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The appellants argued that they had reversed the Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 9,38,288/- under the belief that it was required for goods cleared for export without payment of duty. Subsequently, they claimed a refund of this amount along with another sum of Rs. 3,57,185/-. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claims as being time-barred, filed beyond the 6-month period. The appellants maintained that their letter dated 31-7-1995, requesting the refund and explaining the reversal of Modvat credit, should be considered as the refund claims, filed within the prescribed period. They cited legal precedents to support their argument, emphasizing that a formal refund claim can be a continuation of an initial claim made informally.

Issue 2: Proper form and supporting documents for refund claims

The Respondent, represented by Shri C. L. Mehar, contended that the refund claim filed on 13.8.96 was significantly beyond the 6-month period stipulated in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. It was argued that the letter dated 31-7-1995 could not be deemed a valid refund claim as it lacked the proper form and supporting documents required. However, the Tribunal considered the content of the appellants' letter dated 31-7-1995, which clearly outlined their request for a refund of the reversed Modvat credit and the unutilized credit. The Tribunal emphasized that while the claim may not have been filed in the prescribed form initially, the Department could have directed the appellants to provide the necessary documents. The Tribunal cited previous decisions where a letter indicating the excess payment and a subsequent formal claim were considered a valid refund claim. It was held that the formal claim was a continuation of the original claim and not time-barred under Section 11B. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the Assistant Commissioner's decision and allowing both appeals for the refund claims.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the refund claims of Modvat credit by the appellants were not time-barred and should not be denied solely based on the form of the initial submission. The decision highlighted the importance of considering the substance of the claim and allowing for rectification of procedural deficiencies rather than outright rejection based on technicalities.