2016 (11) TMI 1088 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that - I find that appellant had filed a refund claim of ₹ 12,00,148/- and the claim was sanctioned for an amount of ₹ 7,91,248/-. The claim pertains to October, 2009 to December, 2009 and the new claim also pertains to exactly the same period. I find that the Notification No. 5/2006-C.E. (N.T.), dated 14-3-2006 in clause (2) prohibits filing of more than one refund claim in any quarter in a calendar year. Moreover, the earlier order-in-original dated 20-5-2010 has attained finality as the same has not been challenged by the respondents. It is not open to respondents to raise the issue afresh by filing a new refund claim - appeal allowed - decided in favor of Revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Refund claim under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for the quarter October, 2009 to December, 2009.
- Rejection of the second refund claim by the Assistant Commissioner.
- Entitlement to file multiple refund claims for the same period.
- Interpretation of Notification No. 5/2006-C.E. (N.T.), dated 14-3-2006.
- Finality of an earlier order-in-original.
- Power of the Commissioner (Appeals) to remand the matter.

Analysis:
1. Refund Claim and Rejection by Assistant Commissioner:
The appellant, M/s. Pelicans Automotive & Promotional Products Pvt. Ltd., initially filed a refund claim under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for the quarter October, 2009 to December, 2009. Subsequently, they submitted a letter stating that a portion of the claimed amount was inadmissible. The Assistant Commissioner rejected their second refund claim of a different amount for the same period, citing non-fulfillment of conditions and lack of relevant documents.

2. Entitlement to File Multiple Refund Claims:
The Commissioner (Appeals) held that there was no bar on filing multiple refund claims for the same period. The earlier order sanctioning a partial refund did not preclude the appellant from seeking the balance amount through a fresh claim. However, the Revenue contended that the Notification under Rule 5 prohibits filing more than one refund claim in any quarter, irrespective of the reason for the subsequent claim.

3. Interpretation of Notification and Finality of Earlier Order:
The Tribunal analyzed Notification No. 5/2006-C.E. (N.T.), dated 14-3-2006, which restricts filing more than one refund claim in a quarter. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the earlier order-in-original, which sanctioned a partial refund and was not challenged, had attained finality. Therefore, the respondents were not permitted to raise the same issue again through a new refund claim.

4. Power of the Commissioner (Appeals) to Remand:
The Revenue argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) lacked the authority to remand the matter. However, the Tribunal did not delve into this aspect in its judgment, focusing instead on the substantive issue of the permissibility of filing multiple refund claims for the same quarter.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the Revenue, setting aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and emphasizing the prohibition on filing more than one refund claim in a quarter as per the relevant notification and the principle of finality of earlier orders.