9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 243 - AT - Central ExciseRefund of CENVAT Credit - rejection on the ground of time limitation and failure to file the revised return electronically - Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 142(9)(b) and Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, 1944. Time Limitation - HELD THAT - It is pertinent to note that the adjudicating authority found that the refund claim is within time and also held that the appellant is entitled to Cenvat Credit, but rejected the refund only on the ground that revised return was not filed electronically as required under Section 142(9)(b) ibid read with Rule 12(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the departmental appeal, has held that the refund was filed beyond the period of limitation because the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has taken 30.06.2017 as the relevant date for the purpose of filing refund claim; whereas, as per Explanation B to the Section 11B ibid the date of debiting of the account is the relevant date and from that date, the appellant has filed the refund claim within one year from the relevant date; and therefore, the refund claim was within time. Thus, the findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) are to be set aside. Failure to file the revised return electronically - HELD THAT - The appellant could not file the revised return electronically due to certain technical reasons. The appellant filed the revised return manually. It is found that during the period of dispute, a lot of assessees were facing various technical glitches even for filing TRAN-1 and number of petitions were filed before the various Hon ble High Courts, which allowed filing of TRAN-1 after period of limitation. In the present case, there are no reason that the appellant intentionally did not file the revised return electronically - as per the provisions to Section 142(9)(b) ibid it is not mandatory that revised return is to be filed electronically and the requirement of the law is filing of revised return within time which the appellant, in the present case, has done; therefore, as per Section 142(9)(b) ibid, refund is duly admissible to the appellant, especially when substantial conditions have been fulfilled by the appellant. The impugned order is not sustainable in law and accordingly, the same is liable to be set aside - Appeal allowed.
Issues involved:
The appeal challenges the rejection of the appellant's claim for refund of Cenvat Credit under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, based on the grounds of limitation and failure to file the revised return electronically as required by Section 142(9)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017. Summary of Judgment: Issue 1: Refund claim within limitation period The appellant debited the Cenvat Credit account on 22.10.2018 and subsequently filed a refund claim of Rs.13,38,739/-. The adjudicating authority found the claim to be within the time limit, but the Commissioner (Appeals) held it as time-barred. The relevant date for filing the refund claim was determined to be the date of debiting the account, not 30.06.2017 as contended by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's findings and held the refund claim to be within the prescribed time limit. Issue 2: Requirement of filing revised return electronically The appellant failed to file the revised return electronically due to technical reasons, despite attempting to do so. The Tribunal noted that various assessees faced similar technical challenges during the relevant period, leading to petitions before High Courts for relief. It was emphasized that the law does not mandate electronic filing of revised returns under Section 142(9)(b) of the CGST Act, but rather requires timely submission. As the appellant fulfilled substantial conditions for the refund claim, the Tribunal deemed the refund to be admissible. The impugned order was deemed unsustainable in law, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief. Significant Phrases and Legal Terminology: - Cenvat Credit - Central Excise department - ER-1 return - TRAN-1 - Electronic credit ledger - Adjudicating authority - Commissioner (Appeals) - Section 142(9)(b) of CGST Act, 2017 - Rule 12(5) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Explanation B to Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 - High Courts' judgments - Technical glitches - Tribunal's decision - Relevant date - Debiting of account - Time limitation - Electronic filing requirement - Consequential relief
|
