2005 (2) TMI 633 - AT - Central Excise

CESTAT Bangalore: Refund Claim Rejection Remanded for Timely Filing Compliance

ANDHRA PRADESH PAPER MILLS LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., VISAKHAPATNAM

ANDHRA PRADESH PAPER MILLS LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., VISAKHAPATNAM - 2005 (186) E.L.T. 300 (Tri. - Bang.) Issues: Refund claim rejection on grounds of time bar under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944; Proper procedure in claiming refund under Rule 173L.Refund Claim Rejection on Time Bar Grounds:The case involved appeals filed against OIAs passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Hyderabad, rejecting refund claims on the basis of time bar under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellants had cleared goods to their sister unit for processing, which were later returned due to inadequate facilities. The Commissioner held that the appellants did not follow the proper procedure in dispatching the goods, resulting in the rejection of refund claims. The learned Advocate argued that the OIA went beyond the scope of the Show Cause Notice as the time bar issue was not discussed earlier. The Tribunal, after careful review, found that the appellants were entitled to a refund if the claims were within the time limit prescribed by law. The matter was remanded to the original authority for verification of the time bar aspect and a fresh decision, emphasizing that filing a refund claim within the time limit is a statutory obligation that cannot be ignored.Proper Procedure in Claiming Refund under Rule 173L:The learned JDR contended that the appellants did not follow the correct procedure in claiming a refund under Rule 173L, leading to the assertion that the appeals should be rejected. Upon review, the Tribunal noted that the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) had highlighted the substantive non-compliance of Rule 173L, specifically regarding the absence of the 'duplicate for transporter copy' of the invoices accompanying the returned goods. However, since the appellants had informed the receipt of goods by filing necessary D-3 intimations, the Tribunal concluded that they were entitled to the refund if the claims were submitted within the prescribed time limit. The matter was remanded for further examination of the time bar issue and a fresh decision by the original authority. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of complying with statutory obligations, even if not explicitly mentioned in the Show Cause Notice, underscoring the significance of adhering to the prescribed timelines for filing refund claims.This judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore, highlighted the critical issues of refund claim rejection based on time bar grounds under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the proper procedure in claiming a refund under Rule 173L. The Tribunal's decision to remand the matter for further examination underscored the importance of adhering to statutory obligations and timelines in the refund claim process, ensuring a fair and just determination of the case.