2019 (12) TMI 723 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of unutilized CENVAT Credit - time limitation - refund claim was filed on 07.06.2017 for the quarter 01.04.2016 to 30.06.2016 wherein the last payment was received on 02.06.2016 - refund rejected on the ground of time bar - Section 11BB of CEA - HELD THAT - It is an admitted position that one refund claim is required to be filed for each quarter. Admittedly in a case where one refund claim is required to file in each quarter therefore the period of limitation is to counted one year from the last date of the said quarter is the date for filing the refund claim in terms of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act 1944. As there is an ambiguity in the notification that what should be the relevant date. In the notification on the one hand it has been stated that one refund claim is to be filed quarterly and on the other hand it is saying that within one year from the date of receiving of the foreign convertible exchange when a Notification is having ambiguity that the benefit of doubt goes in favour of the assessee. Admittedly it is an admitted position that there is an ambiguity in the notification therefore benefit of doubt goes in favour of the appellant and the same views was taken in the various pronouncements of the Tribunal as in the cases of M/S. GRAN OVERSEAS LTD. VERSUS C.C.E. DELHI 2017 (1) TMI 234 - CESTAT NEW DELHI and POONA BRUSH COMPANY VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE PUNE - III 2018 (2) TMI 530 - CESTAT MUMBAI . The refund claims filed by the appellants are within one year from the last date of the quarter in each - refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Refund claim of Cenvat credit, time limitation for filing refund claim, interpretation of notification regarding the time period for filing refund claim.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with the issue of refund claims filed by two appellants, one for the quarter of July 2016 to September 2016 and the other for the quarter of April 2016 to June 2016. The main contention was the rejection of these claims as time-barred. The appellants argued that the notification required them to file one refund claim within one year from the date of receipt of foreign convertible exchange, while the Revenue contended that the refund was filed after one year from the last foreign exchange receipt. The Tribunal noted that one refund claim is required to be filed for each quarter, and the period of limitation is to be counted one year from the last date of the quarter for filing the refund claim as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal observed an ambiguity in the notification regarding the relevant date for filing the claim. When faced with ambiguity in a notification, the benefit of doubt goes in favor of the assessee, as held in previous tribunal decisions. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the refund claims filed by the appellants were within the permissible time limit.

The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both parties and analyzed the relevant provisions of the law and notifications. It was noted that the notification required clarity regarding the timeline for filing refund claims. The Tribunal relied on previous decisions to interpret the ambiguous notification in favor of the assessee. The judgment highlighted the principle that when faced with conflicting interpretations, the benefit should be given to the party in a position of doubt. As a result, the impugned orders rejecting the refund claims were set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief. The decision emphasized the importance of interpreting legal provisions in a manner that upholds the principles of justice and fairness, especially in cases involving ambiguities in notifications or regulations.