2018 (2) TMI 133 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of Central Excise Duty - outward freight - rejection on the ground of time limitation - Section 11B of the CEA - Held that - the Central Excise duty was paid in this case through challan dated 22.01.2007. Admittedly, the refund claim was filed on 22.01.2018 as is evident from paragraph 2 of the order of Commissioner (A). Since Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, which is applicable in determining as to when the period of limitation begins, the period of limitation in this case should commence from 23.01.2007 and, by following that date, the statutory period of one year finishes on 22.01.2008. Since the appellant had filed their refund claim application on 22.01.2008, the refund claim has been filed within the period of limitation laid down by the Section 11B of the CEA. Refund claim is not barred by limitation - matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication after giving fair opportunity to the appellant to defend their case - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against rejection of refund claim under Central Excise Act on grounds of being time-barred and on merit due to excess freight collection.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed a refund claim for central excise duty paid on outward freight recovered from dealers, even though goods were sold at the factory gate. The claim was rejected as time-barred and on merit by the adjudicating authority and Commissioner (A).
2. The appellant argued that the claim was filed within the limitation period under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, citing the General Clauses Act and relevant tribunal judgments.
3. The Tribunal analyzed the filing date of the refund claim and the submission of relevant documents, referring to conflicting tribunal judgments. It held that the date of initial filing of the refund claim is crucial, not the date of submission of additional documents.
4. Relying on precedents like Mahindra & Mahindra Limited and Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd., the Tribunal concluded that the refund claim was not time-barred and set aside the Commissioner (A)'s order.
5. The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication, ensuring a fair opportunity for the appellant to present their case.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key arguments, legal interpretations, and conclusions reached by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHANDIGARH regarding the rejection of a refund claim under the Central Excise Act.