2021 (4) TMI 736 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - rejection on the ground that the required documents not produced - time limitation - HELD THAT - In view of the fact that appellants claim for refund was rejected only on the ground that duty paying document was not produced which is contrary to the text of sub-Section 2 of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 and contrary to the evidence available on record being admission of respondent-department throughout the proceedings including at CESTAT that this amount was additionally claimed from the appellant and paid by it, it is found to be a fit case for remand to the adjudicating authority to get himself satisfied with the certified copy of the order of CESTAT passed on dated 17.03.2017 and to dispose of refund application in accordance to the law with due regard to the findings of CESTAT. The appeal is allowed by way of remand to the original adjudicating authority for re-adjudication of refund proceedings.

Summary

Issues:
Denial of refund after tax demand set aside, time-barred appeal, application of Res Judicata, interpretation of Central Excise Act, refund application rejection, jurisdictional bifurcation, duty paying document requirement.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the denial of a refund of ?28,77,899 after a tax demand was set aside by CESTAT in a prolonged litigation that began in 1999. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal as time-barred, leading to the current dispute. The Commissioner noted that the appellant had not brought crucial facts on record regarding previous refund applications and orders.

Regarding the time-barred appeal, the appellant argued for the application of the Indian Limitation Act principles based on a Supreme Court decision. The judgment discusses the necessity of mitigating ultimate hardships and ensuring enforceability of court orders. It questions the department's failure to honor CESTAT orders and the requirement for excise officials to verify refund eligibility despite previous acknowledgments.

The judgment delves into the bifurcation of jurisdiction due to the transition to the GST regime. It highlights discrepancies in dates and filing sequences of refund applications, emphasizing the importance of correct jurisdiction for Res Judicata to apply. The judgment concludes that the rejection of the refund solely based on the absence of a duty paying document contradicts the Central Excise Act and the department's previous acknowledgments.

In light of the above discussion, the judgment allows the appeal by remanding it to the original adjudicating authority for reevaluation of the refund proceedings in alignment with the observations made. The order emphasizes the need for the adjudicating authority to review the CESTAT order and process the refund application considering the law and CESTAT findings.

In conclusion, the judgment addresses various legal aspects, including time limitations, Res Judicata principles, Central Excise Act interpretations, jurisdictional issues, and the necessity of proper documentation for refund processing. The decision to remand the case for further evaluation ensures a fair consideration of the appellant's refund claim.