9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 533X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons itself according to the Appellate authority requires that submission of refund claims without supporting documents is not to be allowed, the factum of its return presupposes its filing with supporting documents, albeit later found to be of incomplete nature. Thus, the reliance placed by the learned appellate authority on the decision in MALWA COTTON SPINNING MILLS LTD. VERSUS CCE, LUDHIANA [ 2013 (5) TMI 318 - CESTAT NEW DELHI ] is misplaced which even otherwise was a case was on interest liability and not on limitation. This Tribunal, in M/S ABHEDYA INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER C.C.E ST, HYDERABAD-III (VECE-VERSA) [ 016 (7) TMI 1113 - CESTAT HYDERABAD ], has held the law to be settled that that the date of initial submission of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alling under Chapter heading 90300000 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They had filed a refund claim for Rs 76,61,153/-on 19.11.2012 under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as CCR,2004 ) pertaining to unutilized cenvat credit accumulated on inputs and input services used in the export of final products for the quarter ending December, 2011 which was submitted along with enclosures on 23.11.2012 with the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Perungudi Division and was duly acknowledged under dated seal and signature. The said claim received on 23.11.2012 was returned by the then Assistant Commissioner on 26.11.2012, on the grounds of non-submission of some relevant documents for processing the ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... together with the refund claim. He would submit that the ground for rejecting the claim being non submission of chartered accountant s certificate for receipt and consumption of inputs and copies of invoices for clearance of goods for home consumption in terms of the requirements of Notification No.5/2006-CE (NT) dated 04-03-2006 as amended itself is untenable as the said notification was superseded by Notification No.27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012 and the appellant s refund claim dated 19.11.2012 ought not to have been rejected by applying the conditions of erstwhile notification No.5/2006-CE(NT). That in any event, when the refund claim was filed, in case of any deficiency instead of calling upon the appellant to remove the same, retur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es inter-alia that submission of refund claim without supporting documents will not be allowed. Indisputably it is an admitted fact that the original refund claim filed was returned to the appellant. When the prevailing instructions itself according to the Appellate authority requires that submission of refund claims without supporting documents is not to be allowed, the factum of its return presupposes its filing with supporting documents, albeit later found to be of incomplete nature. Thus, the reliance placed by the learned appellate authority on the decision in Malwa Cotton Spinning Mills Ltd v CCE, Ludhiana, reported in 2013 (295) ELT 313 (Tri-Del) is misplaced which even otherwise was a case was on interest liability and not on limita ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... preme Renewable Energy Ltd, 2009 (238) ELT 494 (Tri-Chennai) 7. We find that the issue is no more res-integra as the Honourable High Court of Gujarat in United Phosphorous Ltd v Union of India, reported in 2005 (184) ELT 240 (Guj) has held as under: 3. The applications show that they were made under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Under Section 11B of the Act, any person claiming refund of any duty of excise may make an application for refund of such duty to the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise before the expiry of one year from the relevant date in the prescribed form accompanied by documentary or other evidence as the applicant may furnish, to establish that the amount of duty of excise in relat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l, if any adverse order would have been passed on the application rejecting it on the ground of any infirmity that may have been noticed by the authority instead of the unceremonious return of the application. The course adopted by the Assistant Commissioner, of returning the claim application without making an order thereon amounts to refusal to perform the statutory duty imposed on him to consider the application and make an order thereof, in accordance with law. 8. This Tribunal in its decision in Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd v Commr of GST C. Ex, Chennai, reported in 2019 (369) ELT 1636 (Tri-Chennai) has followed the Gujarat High Court decision in United Phosphorous v UOI, supra and has held that when the refund sanctioning authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
