9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (11) TMI 1101 - AT - Central ExciseRefund claims - period of limitation - initially the refund claim was filed before the wrong authority - non-utilisation of Input Service Tax credit lying in balance on account of export of finished goods - Held that - the issue is no more res integra being settled by the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. AIA Engg Ltd. 2010 (9) TMI 555 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT where it was held that The Tribunal has also reiterated that the original refund claim was filed within time before wrong authority - As such, subsequent refiling of refund claim beyond the limitation period should not be held against the assessee. The refund claim is not time barred - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues: Appeal against rejection of refund claim under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules on grounds of limitation.
Analysis: The appeals were filed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs, and Service Tax (Appeals) rejecting the refund claim on the ground of time bar. The appellant had initially filed the refund claim under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules on 09.5.2008, but it was returned by the Asstt. Commissioner, Service Tax, stating that the authority to process the refund lies with the Central Excise Dept. The appellant then refiled the claim with the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, which was subsequently rejected on 10th June, 2009, on the ground of limitation by the Asstt. Commissioner, Central Excise, Junagadh. The issue revolved around whether the refund claim filed with the wrong authority was barred by limitation. The Ld. advocate for the appellant relied on a judgement of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. AIA Engg Ltd., arguing that the issue was no longer res integra. The Ld. AR for the Revenue, on the other hand, referred to the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Everest Flavours Ltd Vs Union of India. The central question to be determined was whether the refund claim filed with the wrong authority under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 was time-barred. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court's decision in AIA Engg. Ltd's case was cited, where it was observed that as long as the original application for refund was filed within the time limit, even if it was before the wrong authority, it should not be considered barred by limitation. The appellate authorities had found that the original refund claim was filed within time, albeit before the wrong authority, and therefore, it was not time-barred. Following the principles laid down in the above case, the impugned order rejecting the refund claim on grounds of limitation was set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law. In conclusion, the judgement highlighted the importance of the timing of filing refund claims under the Cenvat Credit Rules and emphasized that as long as the original application was filed within the prescribed time frame, subsequent refiling with the correct authority should not be held against the assessee. The decision provided clarity on the issue of limitation concerning refund claims and upheld the principle that the correct timing of filing is crucial, even if initially filed with the wrong authority.
|
