2015 (11) TMI 662 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of refund claim - Improper documentation - export of goods - Held that - Revenue has filed the appeal on the ground that respondent has not shown their intention for claim of refund as per the invoice and refund claim has not been filed on the letter head. Another ground is that no foreign exchange has been released by exporting the goods in question. In this case, respondent has already filed refund claim which shows their intention to claim the refund. Therefore, same cannot be ground for filing the appeal before this Tribunal. Further, there is no prescribed rule that refund claim is required to be filed on letter head and only then the refund claim shall be entertained. As there is no such prescribed procedure, therefore, refund claim filed by the respondent cannot be denied. Further, in this case question of foreign exchange realization does not arise as these export goods are free replacement of defective goods. - No infirmity in the impugned order, therefore, same is upheld - Decided against Revenue.

Issues:
1. Refund claim rejection based on grounds of intention, letterhead, and foreign exchange realization.
2. Time limit for filing refund claim.
3. Submission of request letter on the letterhead of exporter.
4. Non-submission of bank realization certificate.

Issue 1 - Refund Claim Rejection:
The case involved a manufacturer of excisable goods who exported goods as replacements for defective ones and filed a refund claim for the duty paid on the exported goods. The Revenue appealed against the refund claim being allowed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) based on grounds that the intention for the claim was not indicated clearly, the claim was not on the letterhead of the manufacturer, and no foreign exchange was released for the exported goods. However, the Tribunal held that the filing of the refund claim itself indicated the intention to claim a refund, and there was no prescribed rule requiring the claim to be on letterhead. Additionally, as the exported goods were free replacements, the question of foreign exchange realization did not apply. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) to allow the refund claim, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

Issue 2 - Time Limit for Filing Refund Claim:
The Tribunal addressed the issue of the time limit for filing the refund claim under Section 11B of the Act. The claim for goods exported within a specific period was initially filed within the time frame but was returned for rectifications and resubmitted later. The Tribunal clarified that the time limit should be computed from the date of the original filing of the claim, not from the resubmission date. It emphasized that the rejection of the claim based on the time limit was beyond the scope of the show cause notice and not acceptable in the eyes of the law. The Tribunal supported its view with legal principles and decisions, ultimately concluding that the claim was filed within the prescribed time limit.

Issue 3 - Submission of Request Letter on Letterhead:
Another ground for rejection was the non-submission of the request letter on the letterhead of the exporter, as required by a specific notification. The Tribunal found that while a condition existed in the CBEC Manual, it was not mandatory for cases where the manufacturer was also the exporter. As there was no dispute regarding the export and duty payment on the goods, minor procedural deviations should not be a reason to deny a legitimate claim. The Tribunal condoned the non-submission of the request letter on the letterhead in this context.

Issue 4 - Non-Submission of Bank Realization Certificate:
The Tribunal noted that the rejection of the claim based on the non-submission of the bank realization certificate was not valid as the appellant had complied by submitting the same. The Tribunal emphasized that when there was no dispute regarding the export and duty payment, procedural requirements like the bank realization certificate should not be a reason for claim rejection. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) to allow the refund claim, dismissing the Revenue's appeal based on this issue as well.

← Previous Next →