2022 (10) TMI 1006 - HC - Central Excise

Interpretation of statute - interpretation of mandatory time limit to file refund claim prescribed in clause (e) of the Para 3(III) of the Notification No.12/2013-ST dated 01.07.2013 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue - right to hold and interpret that the mandatory condition of the Notification that the SEZ unit shall submit only one claim of refund for every quarter, can also include refund claim pertaining to invoices of previous quarters as well, i.e. consolidated invoices of period from August 2013 to October 2017, which is a a complete misreading of clause (f) of Para III of Notification No.12/2013- ST dated 01.07.2013. HELD THAT - This court is of the view that the appeal deserves Admission on the substantial questions of law - Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
Treatment of refund claim under Central Excise Act, 1994.

Analysis:
The High Court of Gujarat heard a Tax Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1994, challenging the order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal had rejected the appeal of the Revenue and upheld the Order in Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central GST & Central Excise, Rajkot. The main issue in question was the treatment to be given in law to the refund claim of the petitioner.

The appellant raised several substantial questions of law for consideration. These questions primarily revolved around the interpretation of the Notification No.12/2013-ST dated 01.07.2013 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue. The questions included whether the mandatory time limit to file a refund claim applied to specific categories of refund claims, the correctness of the sanctioning of the refund claim by the Adjudicating Authority, and the discretion of the Adjudicating Authority in allowing the filing of refund claims beyond the prescribed time limit.

Upon reviewing the impugned order of the CESTAT and hearing the arguments from both parties, the High Court concluded that the appeal deserved admission on specific substantial questions of law. The Court highlighted the importance of interpreting the mandatory time limit to file a refund claim and the conditions regarding the submission of refund claims by the SEZ unit. The Court found that these issues required further consideration and analysis, indicating a potential misreading of the relevant clauses of the Notification No.12/2013-ST dated 01.07.2013.

In summary, the High Court's judgment focused on the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1994, particularly concerning the refund claim of the petitioner. The Court identified specific substantial questions of law that required detailed examination, emphasizing the need for a thorough analysis of the relevant clauses of the Notification to ensure a correct legal interpretation and application in the present case.