2019 (6) TMI 189 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of excess duty paid - rejection on the ground of time bar - HELD THAT - The appellant had initially filed the refund claims on 15.12.2016. Undisputedly, he has filed the refund claims within the limitation period of one year. The said refund claims were returned by the refund sanctioning authority on 06.01.2017 - On perusal of this letter dated 06.01.2017, it is seen that the refund claim is returned as the same cannot be processed due to lack of documents. The said letter does not mention the date by which the appellant can resubmit the refund claims along with necessary documents. Further, it has to be stated that the said letter dated 06.01.2017 does not reject the refund claims on any ground. It is not an order in which the refund sanctioning authority has applied his mind for reaching a decision. The refund claims have been merely returned to the appellant. When the refund claims have been returned and not rejected and when they have been filed again, such filing has to be considered as resubmission of the refund claims and not as fresh refund claims. The refund claims in these appeals, which are resubmitted by the appellant, are not barred by limitation. Hence, the matter is remanded to the refund sanctioning authority who shall decide these claims on merits - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Rejection of refund claims as time-barred.

Analysis:
The appellant filed two refund claims for excess Duty paid, which were initially returned by the refund sanctioning authority on the grounds of insufficient documents. The appellant resubmitted the claims later, but they were rejected as time-barred. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the appeals.

On behalf of the appellant, it was argued that the refund claims were not rejected initially but only returned due to lack of necessary documents. The appellant resubmitted the claims with the required documents. It was highlighted that the Department did not specify a deadline for resubmission, making the rejection on the grounds of being time-barred unjustified. Legal precedents were cited to support this argument.

The Department, represented by the Ld. AR, supported the rejection, stating that the original refund claims lacked essential documents, justifying their return. Referring to the CBEC Central Excise Manual, it was argued that a refund claim is considered filed only when all necessary documents are provided. Since the initial claims were incomplete, the rejection was deemed appropriate.

After hearing both sides, the Tribunal considered the issue of rejection on the grounds of being time-barred. The appellant had initially filed the refund claims within the limitation period of one year. The letter returning the claims did not mention a resubmission deadline or reject the claims outright. Therefore, the subsequent resubmission should be viewed as a continuation rather than fresh claims.

Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the resubmitted claims were not time-barred, as the refund sanctioning authority had not rejected them on merits initially. The matter was remanded to the authority to decide on the claims' merits, setting aside the impugned orders and allowing the appeals.