2020 (10) TMI 154 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of CENVAT Credit - time limitation - rejection on the ground that the claim is barred by limitation of time inasmuch as the appellant had filed the refund application after almost 13 years from the date of reversal of the Cenvat credit in question - HELD THAT - It is an admitted fact on record that the appellant in this case had filed the refund application after almost 13 years from the date of reversal of Cenvat credit. Insofar as the time limit for filing of refund application is concerned, Section 11B ibid in clear and unambiguous term provides that the claim application should be filed within 1 year from the relevant date. The refund application filed by the appellant was considered by the original authority under Section 11B ibid and denied such benefit to the appellant on the ground of limitation. Since, the Central Excise statute clearly mandates the time limit for filing of the refund application, denial of the refund benefit solely on the ground of limitation by the original authority is inconformity with the statutory provisions inasmuch as the adjudicating as well as the appellate authorities are created under the statute and cannot interpret the provisions of law in a different manner than as provided by the legislature. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of COLLECTOR OF CE., CHANDIGARH VERSUS DOABA CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS 1988 (8) TMI 103 - SUPREME COURT have ruled that statutory provisions cannot be interpreted differently by the authorities functioning there under and since the statute has clearly prescribed a time limit for filing of the refund application, the same has to be strictly adhered to by such authority. The refund application filed by the appellant was rejected under the ground of limitation, as per the provisions of Section 11B ibid - Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund application rejected on the ground of time limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of textile fabrics, opted for exemption from central excise duty under Notification No. 30/2004-CE. Subsequently, the appellant reversed Cenvat credit as per instructions from the Board and filed a refund application under Section 11B of the Act after almost 13 years from the date of credit reversal. The appeal was against the denial of the refund benefit by the Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (Appeals) on the grounds of time limitation. The appellant argued that the credit reversal should not be considered as payment of excise duty, and thus, the time limit under Section 11B should not apply. The Revenue, however, supported the decision citing strict compliance required under the law based on previous judgments like Mafatlal Industries Limited Vs. Union of India and Collector of C.E., Chandigarh Vs. Doaba Co-operative Sugar Mills.

The Tribunal noted that Section 11B of the Act clearly specifies a one-year time limit for filing refund applications from the relevant date. The original authority denied the refund benefit solely based on this time limitation. The Tribunal emphasized that statutory provisions must be strictly adhered to, as authorities cannot interpret the law differently from what is provided by the legislature. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Doaba Co-operative Sugar Mills, the Tribunal upheld the denial of the refund application due to being time-barred. The Tribunal concluded that since the refund application was rejected based on the limitation ground in accordance with Section 11B, there were no merits in the appellant's appeal, leading to its dismissal.

This judgment highlights the importance of adhering to statutory provisions, specifically regarding the time limit for filing refund applications under the Central Excise Act, 1944. It underscores the significance of strict compliance with the law and the limitations imposed by the legislature, as interpreted by the judicial authorities.