2019 (5) TMI 453 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of duty paid - case of Revenue is that the duty was not paid fully by the due date - HELD THAT - The appellant is eligible for refund of duty paid by them in earlier cases, in terms of Notification No. 20/2007-CE (Supra) as amended. It is recorded in the adjudication order that all the statutory records are available and it is also observed that the manufacturers availed CENVAT Credit for input services available within the last day of the month for payment of duty on the assessable finished products cleared during the month and the balance amount of duty was paid through the account (PLA). Verification report from The Range Officer was also obtained which found the refund claim in order. The Range Officer had visited the factory and the factory was inspected and examined of the necessary parameter. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Refund under Notification No. 20/2007-CE dated 25.04.2007
- Timeliness of filing refund claims
- Compliance with statutory provisions for refund eligibility

Refund under Notification No. 20/2007-CE dated 25.04.2007:
The appellant's manufacturing unit in Arunachal Pradesh produced goods classifiable under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They cleared excisable goods by utilizing CENVAT Credit and paying the balance amount through a refund sanctioned under Notification No. 20/2007-CE. The Department contended errors in the refund sanction. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication orders, prompting the appellants to appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal found the appellant eligible for the duty refund as per the notification's provisions. The Range Officer verified the refund claim, confirming compliance with statutory requirements.

Timeliness of filing refund claims:
The Department argued that the duty was not fully paid by the due date and questioned the filing of statements subsequent to the duty payment. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted a lack of clarity regarding the duty payment method and the timeliness of the refund claim. However, the Tribunal referenced a High Court judgment emphasizing that the appellant's submission of duty paid statements within the RT-12 returns constituted substantial compliance with the notification's requirements. The Tribunal rejected the Department's argument on timeliness and held that the appellant's actions aligned with the notification's provisions.

Compliance with statutory provisions for refund eligibility:
The Commissioner (Appeals) highlighted the requirement for filing statements by the 7th of the next month following duty payment. Citing a High Court judgment, the Tribunal emphasized that the appellant's submission of duty paid statements through RT-12 returns sufficed for compliance. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, following the High Court's interpretation and allowing the appeals with consequential relief. The decision underscored the importance of interpreting notifications liberally to uphold the substantive benefits available to the assessee and prevent unjust denial of refunds based on procedural technicalities.