9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 799X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2013 / January 2014 to March 2014 / April 2014 to June 2014 / July 2014 to September 2014. Refund claims were filed on 23.12.2014, 27.03.2015, 30.06.2015 and 25.09.2015. The first three refund claims were returned to the appellant by the authorities below vide letters dated 27.02.2015, 07.04.2015 and 20.07.2015 stating that documents furnished are insufficient and that claims required corrections. The appellants resubmitted the refund claims after making good the omissions and also furnished necessary documents. The first three refund claims were thus resubmitted on 10.07.2015, 10.07.2015 & 01.09.2015. The refund sanctioning authority rejected all the refund claims as time-barred stating that the refund claims have been filed beyond the period of one year as envisaged under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He submitted that the Department has taken the date of resubmission of the claims as the date of filing claims and therefore held that the claims are time-barred. Ld. Counsel submitted that the said view of the Department is incorrect. The date of original filing of the claims should be considered as the date for computing the period of limitation and not the date of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laims were not complete in all respects and the claims were thereafter filed beyond the period of one year. The contention of the appellant that the date when the claim was originally filed has to be taken to compute the period of one year cannot be accepted as the claim was incomplete. 5. Ld. A.R submitted that the contention of the appellant that period of one year has to be computed from the last month of the quarter cannot be accepted. If the period of one year is computed from the first month of each quarter it can be seen that the claims have been filed beyond the period of one year. She relied upon the decision in the case of CCE Chennai Vs Celebrity Designs India Pvt. Ltd. - 2015-TIOL-646-HC-MAD-CX and the decision in the case of CCE Vs GTN Engineering - 2012-TIOL-369-HC-MAD-CX. Ld. A.R prayed that the appeals may be dismissed. 6. Heard both sides. 7. The details of the refund claims filed along with date of filing of refund claims as well as date of resubmission are as below : Quarter Date of first export during the quarter Due date for filing the refund claim Date of filing the refund claim Date of Initial submission Refund Amount (Rs.) Oct - Dec 2013 17 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rectifying deficiencies and the re-filings thereafter is a clear indication that the competent authorities were not unaware that the claims had been filed on time. If the completeness of the application was a sine qua non for admissibility of the application, the claim could well have been rejected by immediate issue of a show cause notice and adjudication thereupon instead of taking the course that it did. 11. With this elapse of time in finalizing the claim for refunds the validity of which was sub silentio not questioned, the original authority appeared to have been actuated by the probability of claim for interest arising from the delay that entailed. To reject the claims thereafter, not on merit but by resort to bar of limitation, at the end of the protracted process reflects lack of responsibility and lack of accountability. That this is so is confirmed in the concurrence with this summary disposal by the first appellate authority. 12. We are constrained to make such an observation because the law on this aspect is well-settled. That the appellant is an exporter whose prices, in accordance with well-entrenched policy, are not to be loaded with the tax element should have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 (53) E.L.T. 440 (Tribunal)] has consistently been reiterating this position. The decision of the Tribunal in re : Rohit Pulp & Paper Mills Ltd. has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in dismissing the appeal of Revenue in Civil Appeal No. 7953 of 1995 by order of 18th March, 1996 [1996 (84) E.L.T. A52 (S.C.)]. In the face of this settled position, the lower authorities have erred grievously in denying the refund for almost five years. 15. We would also like to touch upon yet another issue raised in these proceedings: that appellant had wrongly enhanced the claim during the pendency of the claim. This has also been settled by the Tribunal in Premier Tyres Ltd., Kalamassery v. Collector of Customs, Madras [1984 (16) E.L.T. 419 (Tribunal)] thus '31. In view of the foregoing, answer to the question for decision in the present appeal is that if on a proper classification refund of larger amount than admissible under the heading or item originally claimed becomes payable to the appellant, such larger amounts should be refunded to the appellants and should not be limited to the amount admissible under the item or heading originally claimed. 32. It has been expressed that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s decision. Further, in M/s. United Phosphorus Ltd. (supra), it was held that the refund sanctioning authority cannot part with the refund claim by returning the same. He is obliged to pass an order on the merits of such application. When the refund sanctioning authority who received the original refund claims has not rejected these refund claims on merits and has merely returned the same, further filing of the refund claims ought to be considered only as resubmission and not as fresh claims. 9. Relying upon the decisions put forward by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant and also as per the discussions made above, I am of the view that the refund claims in these appeals, which are resubmitted by the appellant, are not barred by limitation. Hence, the matter is remanded to the refund sanctioning authority who shall decide these claims on merits. The impugned orders are set aside." 11. The Principal Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE Indore Vs National Steel & Agro Industries Ltd. - 2016 (42) STR 345 (Tri.-Delhi) held that if the claim is initially filed within time, the resubmission of claim has to be considered in continuation of the earlier claim and cannot be held to be t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... im for July 2014-September 2014 it is seen that when computed from the last month of the quarter, the claim is filed well within time. The claim has been held to be time-barred computing the period of one year from the first month of the quarter. When the notification prescribes to file the refund claim for a quarter, the entire quarter has to be considered as a whole, without splitting each month. The appellant is eligible to get refund of unutilized credit of every month. The procedure to file refund claim for a quarter is only to make the filing and processing easier. The last month which is included in the quarter would have to be reckoned for computing the period of one year. When the notification allows the assessee to file refund claims for a quarter, such right of refund cannot be snatched away by computing one year from the first month of the said quarter. Further, the appellant was not even issued a deficiency memo. 14. Ld. A.R has submitted that even at the time of resubmission, the appellant has not furnished necessary documents. It is noted in the impugned order as well as the order passed by the original authority that the appellant has not furnished E.R.2 returns an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
