2017 (12) TMI 938 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of excess duty paid - supplementary claims - denial on the ground of time limitation - Held that - the supplementary claims filed by the appellants cannot be held as time-barred - similar issue decided in the case of SHASUN CHEMICALS & DRUGS LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX. PONDY 2010 (4) TMI 638 - CESTAT CHENNAI where it was held that as initial claim was within time and was allowed supplementary claim could not be said to be time barred - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rebate of Central Excise duty claim rejection on the ground of time bar.
2. Supplementary claim for refund of Central Excise duty.
3. Interpretation of Section 11B regarding recredit of the amount.
4. Applicability of Circular No.510/06/2000-CX.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the rejection of rebate claims of Central Excise duty by the appellants on the grounds of time bar. The appellants had filed claims for refund of duty with the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, which were rejected due to time limitations. The original authority confirmed the rejection, leading to appeals filed by the appellants to the Commissioner (Appeals), which were also rejected. The Tribunal reviewed the case and set aside the impugned orders, directing the competent authority to sanction the refund of the balance amount or allow credit in the cenvat credit account of the appellant based on previous decisions.

2. The appellants made supplementary claims for refund of Central Excise duty, which were prompted by the department's advice. The Tribunal considered the supplementary claims and held that they cannot be deemed time-barred, as the initial claims were made within the prescribed time limit. Citing previous decisions, the Tribunal directed the competent authority to sanction the refund of the balance amount or allow credit in the cenvat credit account of the appellant, similar to the practice prevailing in such cases.

3. The issue of recredit of the amount in the Cenvat account was raised by the appellants, emphasizing that it should not be treated as a fresh refund claim under Section 11B. The appellants sought restoration of the restricted amount as recredit in their Cenvat Account, as the excess payment of duty was not disputed. The Tribunal agreed with the appellants' stance, considering the matter already settled and in vogue at the material time. The Tribunal's decision was influenced by previous judgments favoring the appellants in similar cases.

4. The re-determination of the FOB value of the goods by the Maritime Commissioner, after deducting exact freight and insurance from the CIF value, was a crucial aspect of the case. The appellants accepted this redetermination despite its contradiction with Circular No.510/06/2000-CX. The Tribunal acknowledged this discrepancy but focused on the appellants' request for recredit of the difference between the claim and the sanctioned amount in their Cenvat account. The Tribunal's decision was guided by the overarching principles and precedents established in similar matters.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment addressed various issues related to rebate claims, supplementary refund claims, recredit of amounts, and the interpretation of relevant circulars and legal provisions. The decision provided clarity on the time limitations for claims and emphasized the importance of following established practices and precedents in such cases.