Exemption notification compliance for refund failed where the prescribed monthly duty statement was filed late and in consolidated form.

Refund under an exemption notification was held inadmissible because the manufacturer did not file the prescribed monthly statement of duty paid through PLA by the stipulated deadline. The notification required the statement of duty paid otherwise than through CENVAT credit to be submitted to the jurisdictional Central Excise authority by the 7th of the following month, but the claims were lodged in a consolidated manner for a long period instead of month-wise. As the filing condition was not complied with in the manner and time required, the exemption condition was not satisfied and the rejection of the remaining refund was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim under the exemption notifications was admissible when the manufacturer did not submit the prescribed monthly statement of duty paid through PLA by the stipulated time.

Analysis: The exemption notification required the manufacturer to submit a statement of duty paid other than by utilisation of CENVAT credit to the jurisdictional Central Excise authority by the 7th of the next month in which the duty was paid. The refund claims in question were filed in a consolidated manner for a long period, instead of on the monthly basis contemplated by the notification. Since the prescribed statement was not filed in the manner and within the time required by the notification, the condition for claiming the exemption was not satisfied.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not admissible and the rejection of the balance refund was upheld against the assessee.

---