2018 (1) TMI 485 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - rejection on the grounds that it had been filed belatedly and was hit by limitation - Section 11 B of the CEA - Held that - the competent authority is required to either sanction or reject the refund claim otherwise order for the amount claimed to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. There is however no provision for the return of refund claims without making any of these decisions. There is no speaking order issued in this case - Once the relevant date is taken as 07.05.2004, the refund claim is found to be filed within the period prescribed under Section 11 B ibid. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the rejection of refund claim by the original authority on the ground of limitation cannot sustain - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim filed under Section 11 B of the Central Excise Act.
2. Rejection of refund claim on grounds of limitation.
3. Interpretation of relevant date for filing refund claims.
4. Applicability of judgments in similar cases.
5. Consideration of initial filing date for refund claims.
6. Applicability of Section 11B for refund applications.

Analysis:
The case involved the appellants, manufacturers of power-driven pumps, availing SSI exemption under Notification No.9/2003-CE for their brand name CRI. During an audit, it was discovered that they were also availing exemption for clearances under the brand name CRI AKASH, leading to a differential Central Excise duty liability. The appellants paid an amount and filed a refund claim, which was initially deemed "premature" and later rejected on grounds of being belated and hit by limitation. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection based on limitation, prompting the appeal before the forum.

The main contention revolved around the timeliness of the refund claim under Section 11 B of the Central Excise Act. The appellant argued that the resubmission of the claim should date back to the original claim, citing relevant judgments in support. On the contrary, the respondent argued that since the refund had been rejected earlier, the claim was not filed in time. The forum considered the facts and relevant provisions under Section 11 B, emphasizing the importance of the initial filing date for refund claims.

The forum highlighted that any person seeking a refund under Section 11 B must adhere to the prescribed timeline, with the relevant date typically being the date of payment of duty. In this case, the forum noted that the rejection letter could not be considered as an order or decision appealable by the appellants. Therefore, the original filing date of the refund claim was deemed relevant, and the claim was found to be within the prescribed period under Section 11 B. The forum drew support from a similar case involving DCM Shriram Consolidated Ltd. and emphasized the importance of considering the initial application date for calculating the limitation period.

Based on the analysis and precedents cited, the forum concluded that the rejection of the refund claim on grounds of limitation was not sustainable. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential reliefs, if any, as per the law. The forum's decision was based on a thorough examination of the provisions of Section 11 B and the interpretation of the relevant date for filing refund claims, ensuring a just outcome in line with legal principles and precedents.