9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (3) TMI 884 - AT - Central ExciseRefund claim - amount paid during the investigation - whether tantamounts to deposit under protest? - applicability of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT - The undisputed fact that remains is that the refund is claimed as a consequence of CESTAT s Final Order in AAR AAR METAL REFINERY VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI 2017 (8) TMI 1047 - CESTAT CHENNAI and hence, it is not a normal refund claim. The legislature in its wisdom has inserted (ec) under Explanation (B) to Section 11B with effect from 11.05.2007 with a purpose, thereby carving out an exception from a normal refund claim. This according to me is in the nature of a special provision and hence, any claims made as a consequence of Appellate Order/(s) will have to pass through the rigours of (ec) ibid. When a specific provision is available in the statute covering the specific cases, it is the duty to examine whether a claim falls under such specific provision and if so, then such claims should necessarily comply with the conditions prescribed thereunder. The factual matrix here in the case on hand which is undisputed, is that the refund application was filed with a delay of more than four months in consequence of an Order of this Bench (Appellate Order) and hence, the same is not satisfying the specific provision under (ec) ibid - appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
Claim of refund based on CESTAT's Final Order, applicability of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to refund claim, interpretation of relevant date under Explanation (B) to Section 11B, delay in filing refund application, impact of appellate orders on refund claims. Analysis: 1. Claim of Refund based on CESTAT's Final Order: The appellant filed an appeal seeking a refund of an amount paid during an investigation, as per CESTAT's Final Order No. 41775 of 2017 dated 21.08.2017. The issue revolved around whether this refund claim was valid and fell within the scope of the relevant legal provisions. 2. Applicability of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944: The appellant argued that the amount paid was a deposit under protest, not subject to the time limitations of Section 11B for claiming a refund. The contention was supported by citing relevant legal precedents to establish the nature of the payment made during the investigation. 3. Interpretation of Relevant Date under Explanation (B) to Section 11B: The Revenue contended that the refund claim did not meet the conditions specified under Explanation (B) to Section 11B, emphasizing the statutory time limit for refund applications. The argument focused on the legislative intent behind the provision and the exceptional circumstances under which a refund claim can be made. 4. Delay in Filing Refund Application: The appellant admitted a delay of more than four months in filing the refund application following the Appellate Order. The discussion centered on whether this delay affected the validity of the refund claim and whether it complied with the specific provisions outlined in the law. 5. Impact of Appellate Orders on Refund Claims: The judgment highlighted the significance of appellate orders in refund claims and the necessity to adhere to the conditions set forth in the law. It underscored the importance of following statutory provisions and not interpreting them in a manner that would render them ineffective. 6. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the refund claim, being a consequence of the CESTAT's Final Order, did not meet the requirements specified under Section 11B and Explanation (B). The judgment underscored the need for strict compliance with statutory provisions governing refund claims and upheld the findings of the lower authorities in this regard. The judgment delves into the nuances of refund claims in the context of appellate orders and statutory provisions, providing a detailed analysis of the legal arguments presented by both parties. It underscores the importance of statutory compliance in refund matters and highlights the implications of delay and specific conditions outlined in the law.
|
