2019 (11) TMI 488 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of excess duty paid - rejection of refund on the ground of time limitation - original refund application was filed within time but it was returned for deficiencies and is resubmitted by the assessee after rectifying the defects - whether the original date should be considered or the date of the final submission for purpose of reckoning limitation under Section 11B? - HELD THAT - This issue is no longer res integra and it has been decided by the Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the case of COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., DELHI-I VERSUS ARYA EXPORTS AND INDUSTRIES 2005 (4) TMI 90 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI as well as by the Hon ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VERSUS AIA ENGINEERING LTD. 2010 (9) TMI 555 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT that the date of the original application should be considered. Thus, the date of original application for refund before LTU should be considered for the purpose of limitation under Section 11B. In this particular case, there is another twist inasmuch as the applicant has filed a consolidated refund application before the LTU covering all their units while the final refund application was confined to their Kadapa unit only and hence the amount of refund claimed was different. Thus, the date of their original refund application filed before the LTU New Delhi should be reckoned as the date of filing the refund application - As far the question of computation and verification of documents is concerned, the original authority should be given an opportunity to verify all the documents and examine and settle the claim as per the provisions of the law. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Time limitation for refund application under Section 11B.
2. Rejection of refund application based on deficiencies in documents and calculations.

Issue 1: Time limitation for refund application under Section 11B
The appellant filed a refund claim with the Large Tax Payers unit (LTU) New Delhi, realizing an excess payment of excise duty. The LTU communicated that the refund application was not in proper form, leading to subsequent correspondence between the appellant and the LTU. The appellant later opted out of the LTU scheme and obtained individual registrations for their factories. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund application as time-barred, among other grounds. The appellant contended that the original filing date before LTU should be considered for limitation under Section 11B, relying on legal precedents. The Tribunal agreed, citing past judgments, and held that the original application date should be considered for limitation purposes. The appeal was allowed by remanding the case to the original authority for verification and settlement of the refund claim based on the original application date.

Issue 2: Rejection of refund application based on deficiencies in documents and calculations
The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund application citing deficiencies in accuracy of calculations, lack of substantiation by relevant invoices, and submission of irrelevant documents. The appellant argued that they could provide necessary invoices and explanations if given an opportunity. The Tribunal acknowledged the voluminous nature of the documents submitted and agreed that the original authority should be allowed to verify all documents and settle the claim as per the law. The appeal was disposed of by way of remand, directing the original authority to examine and settle the claim after verifying the documents as necessary, providing the appellant with an opportunity to explain the documents and calculations.

In conclusion, the Tribunal addressed the issues of time limitation for refund application and rejection based on deficiencies in documents and calculations. The judgment clarified that the original filing date before LTU should be considered for limitation under Section 11B and directed the original authority to verify all documents and settle the claim accordingly. The appellant was granted an opportunity to provide necessary invoices and explanations for a fair assessment of the refund claim.