2017 (9) TMI 1485 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of amount paid u/r 6 of the CCR, 2004 - whether the respondent is entitled to the refund of the amount prior to the insertion of explanation in Rule 8(4) of Central Excise Rules, 2002? - Held that - explanation was inserted in Rule 8(4) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 by Notification No.8/2007-CE (NT) dt. 01.03.2007. Therefore, the respondent is not entitled to the refund of the amount for the period from 03.01.2007 to 28.03.2007 - the respondent is not eligible to refund prior to 01.03.2007 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim under Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004; Entitlement to refund prior to the insertion of explanation in Rule 8(4) of Central Excise Rules, 2002.

Analysis:
The case involved a refund claim filed by the respondents for an amount paid under Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, between 03.01.2007 to 06.06.2007, which they contended was paid by mistake as they had already fulfilled requirements under Notification No.108/95-CE. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the claim, but the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the respondent, leading to the Revenue filing this appeal along with a cross objection by the respondent.

The Revenue argued that the insertion of an explanation in Rule 8(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, through Notification No.8/2007-CE (NT) dated 01.03.2007, precludes the respondent from claiming a refund for the period prior to this amendment. On the other hand, the respondent contended that the refund under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, does not fall under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, citing the decision in the case of Hwashin Automotive India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. Of C.Ex., Chennai-IV [2007(218) E.L.T. 703 (Tri.-Chennai)].

After hearing both sides and examining the records, the Commissioner (Appeals) had noted that the refund claim should comply with Section 11B. The presiding Member found merit in the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing that the insertion of the explanation in Rule 8(4) precludes the refund for the period before 01.03.2007. The Member distinguished the case law cited by the respondent, stating that it does not apply to the present case's specific issue regarding the entitlement to a refund before the rule amendment.

Consequently, the impugned order was modified to deny the respondent's eligibility for a refund before 01.03.2007, thereby disposing of the Revenue's appeal accordingly. Additionally, the cross objection filed by the respondent was also disposed of during the proceedings.

This judgment clarifies the application of rules and provisions concerning refund claims under the Cenvat Credit Rules and Central Excise Rules, highlighting the significance of timely compliance and the impact of rule amendments on refund entitlements.