Appeals allowed, refund claims rejection overturned for procedural non-compliance. Timeliness upheld under General Clauses Act interpretation.

The appeals were allowed based on the issues discussed, with any consequential relief granted to the appellants. The rejection of the refund claims was overturned due to the procedural requirements not being met, including the declaration of cenvatability and the conversion factor. Additionally, the timeliness of filing the refund claims within one year from the date of payment of SAD to the Customs Department was deemed acceptable based on the General Clauses Act interpretation.

---

---

Issues:
1. Eligibility for refund of SAD claimed in respect of timber imported and sold in the domestic market.
2. Non-declaration of cenvatability and the conversion factor as grounds for rejecting the refund claim.
3. Timeliness of filing refund claims within one year from the date of payment of SAD to Customs Department.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The main issue in all the cases revolved around the eligibility of the appellants for a refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) claimed on timber imported and sold in the domestic market. The rejection of the claims was based on the appellants' failure to declare in the invoice for domestic sales that the purchaser could not avail cenvat credit. Both parties agreed that the matter was covered by a decision of the Larger Bench in Chowgule & Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC & C.Ex., where it was held that the endorsement on the invoice was a procedural requirement and the purpose could be achieved even without specifying the duty element in the invoice. The Tribunal concluded that the absence of the endorsement did not undermine the exemption's purpose. The appellants argued that since no tax element was separately indicated, similar to the case considered by the Tribunal Larger Bench, the appeals should be allowed on this issue.

Issue 2:
In the appeal filed by V.U.S Timbers, apart from the non-declaration of cenvatability, the conversion factor was cited as another ground for rejecting the refund claim. However, this issue had been addressed in a recent order in the case of M/s. E. Oriental Timbers and others, and it was also covered by a previous decision of the Tribunal in CC, Mangalore Vs. Royal Timbers. Therefore, the impugned order could not be sustained on this ground as well.

Issue 3:
In Appeal No. C/1582/2011, another ground for rejecting the refund claim was the failure to file the claim within one year from the date of payment of SAD to the Customs Department. The General Clauses Act stipulates that for calculating one year, the date of duty payment should be omitted, and the period should be calculated from the next day. Applying this principle, the claim filed on 13.05.2009, one day after the one-year mark from the payment date of 13.05.2008, should be considered as filed within the limitation period. Consequently, the appeal was allowed on this basis.

In conclusion, all the appeals were allowed based on the issues discussed, with any consequential relief granted to the appellants.

---