2012 (11) TMI 27 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim procedure to claim refund claim Held that - even though appellants wrote on 23-3-2009 that they were eligible for refund of the amount paid as per Commissioner (Appeals) order dated 3-10-2005 reply by the department did not treat it as a refund claim but told them that they had not preferred any refund claim. - he proper course for the department was to point out the omission rather than stating that no refund application has been filed. - the letter dated 21-3-2009 received by the department on 24-3-2009 should have been treated as a refund claim and considered and dealt with accordingly. - matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority.

Issues:
1. Eligibility for refund of the amount deposited during the investigation stage.
2. Disposal of the refund claim filed by the appellant on 26-2-2004.
3. Interpretation of correspondence regarding the refund claim.
4. Consideration of the appellant's letter dated 21-3-2009 as a refund claim.

Issue 1: Eligibility for refund of the amount deposited during the investigation stage
The Tribunal addressed the question of eligibility for a refund of an amount deposited by the appellant during the investigation stage. The proceedings, initiated in 1997, culminated in the confirmation of a demand, followed by the withdrawal of the proceedings. The eligibility for the refund was deemed to have arisen on 20-12-2005, as per the adjudicating authority's order. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs. 85,000 during the investigation stage, raising the issue of whether they were entitled to a refund of this sum.

Issue 2: Disposal of the refund claim filed by the appellant on 26-2-2004
In the first round of litigation, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority. Subsequently, the appellant filed a refund claim on 26-2-2004, which was paid by them. However, the original adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and appropriated the amount paid by the appellant towards it. Despite being informed that the refund claim had been disposed of, the appellant did not appeal against this decision. The Tribunal examined the handling of the refund claim and the communication regarding its disposal.

Issue 3: Interpretation of correspondence regarding the refund claim
The Tribunal scrutinized the correspondence between the appellant and the revenue department concerning the refund claim. The appellant argued that their refund claim dated 26-2-2004 was not disposed of and should be considered valid. The department contended that the claim had already been disposed of, as evidenced by earlier communications. The Tribunal analyzed the sequence of letters exchanged between the parties and assessed whether the refund claim had been effectively addressed.

Issue 4: Consideration of the appellant's letter dated 21-3-2009 as a refund claim
The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and correspondence, found discrepancies in how the refund claim was handled. Despite the appellant's assertion of eligibility for a refund based on a specific order, the department did not treat it as a refund claim. In the interest of fairness and justice, the Tribunal deemed the appellant's letter dated 21-3-2009 as a refund claim. The matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority for proper consideration and processing of the claim in accordance with the law. Both the revenue department and the appellant's representatives agreed to this proposal, leading to the Tribunal's decision for further action on the refund claim.

← Previous Next →