2014 (4) TMI 226 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal remands Revenue's appeal, citing Supreme Court judgment, for reconsideration of refund claim time limit.

The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal against the remand order, citing a Supreme Court judgment. However, the extension of time for filing the refund ... Extension of time for filing refund claim under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - first appellate authority remanded matter back - It is the case of the Revenue that the first appellate authority should not have remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority and should have decided the matter himself. - Held that:- question needs to be factually addressed only by the adjudicating authority, the adjudicating authority should be given a chance to consider the issue afresh - Accordingly, the impugned order as well as the order of the adjudicating authority are set aside the matter is remanded back to adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue afresh after following the principles of natural justice - Decided in favour of Revenue. Issues:1. Appeal against remand of the matter by the first appellate authority.2. Extension of time for filing refund claim under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.Analysis:1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal remanding the matter back to the adjudicating authority. The Revenue contended that the first appellate authority should have decided the matter instead of remanding it. The Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of MIL India Ltd 2007 (210) ELT 188 (SC) was cited, supporting the Revenue's argument. The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue on this point. However, the issue at hand was the extension of time sought by the respondent for filing a refund claim under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal determined that this factual issue should be addressed by the adjudicating authority, emphasizing the need for reconsideration following the principles of natural justice.2. Consequently, the impugned order and the adjudicating authority's order were set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the adjudicating authority for a fresh consideration. It was explicitly stated that no opinion on the case's merits was recorded, and all issues remained open for further examination. The appeal was disposed of in accordance with the remand decision, ensuring a fair and thorough reconsideration of the extension of time for the refund claim under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.