2017 (2) TMI 53 - AT - Central Excise

100% EOU - rejection of refund claim - time bar - the learned Commissioner (A) has remanded the case back to the original authority for re-quantification and the original authority has not quantified or shown the actual amount of refund which is liable for rejection on account of time bar - Held that - this case needs to be remanded back to the original authority to re-compute the amount of refund relating to the period which is hit by limitation of time i.e., from 1.10.2009 to 28.10.2009 - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Time bar for refund claim under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Remand for re-quantification of refund amount by original authority.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Time bar for refund claim under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944
The appellants, engaged in manufacturing and exporting pharmaceutical products, filed refund claims under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules for accumulated unutilized CENVAT credit towards exports. The adjudicating authority initially sanctioned a refund but restricted it for a specific period due to time bar under Section 11B. The Commissioner (A) upheld this decision, rejecting some refund claims and remanding the case for re-quantification. The appellant argued against the time bar, citing a Karnataka High Court case and previous Tribunal decisions. However, the AR supported the time bar, referring to Section 11B and relevant dates for export refunds. The AR presented Madras High Court cases emphasizing the application of time limits for refund claims, supporting the Department's appeal. The Tribunal, considering these arguments and precedents, concluded that the case should be remanded for re-computation of the refund amount affected by the time limitation, ultimately allowing the appeals by way of remand.

Issue 2: Remand for re-quantification of refund amount by original authority
The appellate authority remanded the case back to the original authority for re-quantification of the refund amount due to time bar restrictions. The appellant contended that the remand was unwarranted, as the original authority had not quantified the amount liable for rejection due to time bar. However, the Tribunal, after analyzing submissions from both parties and legal precedents, found it necessary to remand the case for a proper re-computation of the refund amount affected by the time limitation. The Tribunal allowed both appeals by remanding the case to the original authority for re-evaluation, emphasizing the importance of considering time bar implications in refund claims under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

This comprehensive analysis highlights the key legal aspects and arguments presented in the judgment, addressing the issues of time bar for refund claims and the necessity of remand for re-quantification in light of legal provisions and precedents cited during the proceedings.