2017 (12) TMI 941 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of excise duty paid - denial on the ground of time limitation - N/N. 12/2012-CE dated 17.3.2012 - whether the time limit prescribed under N/N. 12/2012 dated 17.3.2012, which stipulates that refund claim is required to be filed within six months from the date of clearance of vehicle is to be taken as from the date of clearance or from the date of registration of the vehicle as Taxi? - Held that - the time limit to be counted from the date of cause of action - Admittedly, in this case, cause of action arises from filing the refund claim after registration as Taxi. If period is taken from the date of registration as Taxi then the refund claim filed by the respondent is within time - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the time limit prescribed under Notification No.12/2012 for filing a refund claim is to be counted from the date of clearance of the vehicle or from the date of registration of the vehicle as a Taxi.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by Revenue against the rejection of a refund claim as time-barred under Notification No.12/2012-CE dated 17.3.2012. The appellant had paid excise duty on a motor vehicle cleared as a Taxi and filed a refund claim beyond the prescribed six-month period. The Revenue argued that the refund claim was not maintainable as it was filed beyond the stipulated time limit. The Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed the refund claim based on a Tribunal decision in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra. The Revenue contended that the Tribunal's decision in the case of Skoda India Pvt. Ltd. established the requirement to file the refund claim within six months from the date of duty payment, which the appellant had not complied with.

The respondent's counsel argued that the time limit for filing a refund claim should be calculated from the date of registration of the vehicle as a Taxi, not from the date of clearance. They cited the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. to support this contention. The counsel emphasized that the Act's Section 11B stipulates a one-year period for filing refunds, and the Notification cannot override the Act's provisions. They further argued that the cause of action for the refund claim arose at the time of registration as a Taxi, not at the clearance date of the vehicle. The counsel relied on legal precedents to support their argument, including a decision of the Apex Court in a relevant case.

After hearing both parties, the Tribunal analyzed the issue at hand. The Tribunal noted that the cause of action for the refund claim arose from the registration of the vehicle as a Taxi, not from the clearance date. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the Tribunal emphasized that the time limit should be counted from the date of the cause of action. As the refund claim was filed within time from the registration as a Taxi, the Tribunal held that the claim was timely and dismissed Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal's decision was based on the understanding that subordinate legislation, such as a notification, cannot impose a limitation period on refund claims where the right to claim refund has not yet accrued.