9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 596 - AT - Central ExciseRefund of duty paid - enhancement of rate of duty by way of Circular - rejection on the ground of time limitation in terms of Section 11B (1) of the CEA 1944 - commissioner (appeals) allowed the refund - Held that - CBEC vide Circular dated 11.02.2014 clarified that the enhanced rate of duty was effective from 28.05.2012 and not from 17.03.2012. The refund claim was filed for the period from 01.04.2012 to 30.06.2012 - As per Board s Circular, old rate of duty is payable prior to 28.05.2012. It is seen that the appellant paid the amount by debiting their cenvat account. Hence, they are entitled to re-credit the refund amount to their cenvat account. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
1. Refund claim rejected on the ground of limitation. 2. Application of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. Unjust enrichment issue. 4. Scope of Show Cause Notice in rejecting refund. Analysis: Issue 1: Refund claim rejected on the ground of limitation The Adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim based on the submission date being beyond one year from the date of payment. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal, stating that the claim was filed within the time limit from the 'cause of action,' as per CBEC circular dated 11.02.2014. The Commissioner relied on case law to support that the limitation period commences from the date of discovery of error, not from the date of payment. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing that the refund application was timely filed. Issue 2: Application of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 The Commissioner (Appeals) determined that Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not applicable to the case, as the refund application was filed within the relevant time frame based on the 'cause of action.' The Tribunal concurred with this finding, stating that the provisions of Section 11B were not applicable due to the specific circumstances of the case and the timely filing of the refund claim. Issue 3: Unjust enrichment issue The Adjudicating authority noted that the differential duty amount had not been passed on to buyers, thus ruling out the unjust enrichment issue. However, the rejection of the refund claim was based on the timing of the claim submission rather than unjust enrichment. The Commissioner (Appeals) did not find unjust enrichment and allowed the appeal, focusing on the limitation aspect. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing the timely filing of the refund claim over the unjust enrichment issue. Issue 4: Scope of Show Cause Notice in rejecting refund The appellant raised concerns that the rejection of the refund claim on the basis of limitation was beyond the scope of the Show Cause Notice (SCN). The Commissioner (Appeals) acknowledged this discrepancy, highlighting that the adjudicating authority cannot reject a refund on grounds not indicated in the SCN. The Tribunal supported this view, citing a case where the Mumbai High Court held that an authority cannot introduce new grounds for rejection beyond the scope of the original notice. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing adherence to the grounds specified in the SCN. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, allowing the refund claim and directing the re-credit of the refund amount to the appellant's cenvat account. The appeal by the Revenue was disposed of, and the cross-objection was also resolved.
|
