9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 921X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2000, and the limitation has to be reckoned from the date the Notification has been issued. In the absence of such notification, there was no cause of action in favour of the assessee. Hence, the application moved for refund on 19.06.2001, was within time, and there was no logic in reckoning the limitation from July, 1999, under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The ratio of the judgments are applicable in the facts of the present case, in the present case, after the Notification dated 18.04.2013, the DGFT, had no powers to grant the refund and the time taken before that authority could not be made basis to reject the application for refund on the ground of expiry of the limitation. The application in the present case was made on 03.10.2013, and after the Notification dated 18.04.2013, the period of one year would start from the date 18.04.2013, to approach the correct forum for grant of refund i.e. Deputy Commissioner. The period of one year would expire on 18.04.2014, and the appellant had approached the DGFT, Dehradun on 03.10.2013, which was before the expiry of limitation i.e. 18.04.2014. The order passed by the CESTAT, New Delhi is being set aside - Appeal allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpted from payment of Central Excise Duty under the Notification No. 12/2012-C.E. dated 17.03.2012. 7. The Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Commerce, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi, had issued a Notification No.4 (RE-2013)/2009-2014 dated 18.04.2013, where amendments were made to para 8.3 (c) of the Foreign Trade Policy, concerning deemed exports scheme . It was clarified that refund of terminal excise duty would be given if exemption is available, and it was further clarified that exemption from terminal excise duty was available to supply against ICB. A further clarification was given vide Circular No. 16 (RE-2012/2009-2014) dated 15.03.2013, by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Director General of the Foreign Trade, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi, about exemption for supply of goods under ICB. It was further clarified that if there has been any error/oversight committed, then the agency collecting the tax, would refund it, rather than seeking the reimbursement from the another agency. It was further clarified that if the supplies are ab-initio exempted from payment of excise duty, no refund of terminal excise duty, should be provided by the DGFT. Notification dated 18.04. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refund claim vide order dated 30.01.2015, Annexure no.8, to the appeal. The reasons given while rejecting the refund claim was that the refund claim was time barred under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Initially the refund claim had been filed within time with DGFT, as that was the prevalent procedure notified, and only upon the directions of DGFT, the refund claims are now been filed with the Central Excise Authority. 13. The appellant went in appeal, and the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Dehradun, partly allowed the refund claim, immediately after return by the DGFT, within time limit of one year, as per section 11B of the Central Excise Act, from the date of the payment of the terminal excise duty. 14. However, the Divisional Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, fortified the view that the project authorization certificates, were valid documents, to enable them to claim the refund of the terminal excise duty. The claims, which were made beyond a period of one year under section 11B of the Act were rejected. Against the above said order, the claim was rejected amounting to Rs. 21,09,929/- which on further appeal was also rejected by the Commissioner (Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... application, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise is satisfied that the whole or any part of the duty of excise and interest, if any, paid on such duty paid by the applicant is refundable, he may make an order accordingly and the amount so determined shall be credited to the Fund: Provided that the amount of duty of excise and interest, if any, paid on such duty as determined by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise under the foregoing provisions of this sub-section shall, instead of being credited to the Fund, be paid to the applicant, if such amount is relatable to (a) rebate of duty of excise on excisable goods exported out of India or on excisable materials used in the manufacture of goods which are exported out of India; Explanation . For the purposes of this section,- (A) refund includes rebate of duty of excise on excisable goods exported out of India or on excisable materials used in the manufacture of goods which are exported out of India. (B) relevant date means (a) In the case of goods exported out of India where a refund of excise duty paid is available in respect of the go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ually be applicable to Appellate Forums, and in addition to that would be applicable to cases of delay initiated suit or any other authority concerning proceedings. The time utilized before a wrong forum has to be adjusted when the appellant approaches the correct forum to claim refund. 18. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunrays Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Jaipur reported in 2015 (318) E.L.T. 583 (S.C.), had examined the case of limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Hon ble Supreme Court was examining a Notification dated 31.10.2000, where the rate of excise duty has been reduced with retrospective effect i.e. w.e.f 01.07.1999. The refund application was made on 19.06.2001. Keeping in view the Notification dated 31.10.2000, the Hon ble Supreme Court held that the trigger point which entitled the authority to refund was 31.10.2000, and the limitation has to be reckoned from the date the Notification has been issued. In the absence of such notification, there was no cause of action in favour of the assessee. Hence, the application moved for refund on 19.06.2001, was within time, and there was no logic in reckoning the limitati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
