2008 (9) TMI 295 - AT - Central Excise

CESTAT Mumbai Grants Refund, Rejects Delay Argument

DURALINE INDIA PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, GOA

The CESTAT, Mumbai, ruled in favor of the appellant, granting a refund of Rs. 6,45,239/- after finding that the rejection of refund claims by the Deputy ... Re-submission of refund claim - The refund claims were returned to the appellant on the grounds that the claims were incomplete without any documentary evidence or proper grounds. Subsequently, appellant filed additional documents and re-submitted the refund claims after a lapse of more than one year. Accordingly 9 S.C.N.’s were issued alleging that the re-submission of the refund claims with additional documents was beyond the period of one year from the date of payment of duty as provided under Section 11B of the CEA, 1944 and the refund claims had become time barred – held that re-submission of the refund claim should be considered from the date of filing of original claim – refund is allowed Issues:1. Refund claims filed beyond the prescribed period under Section 11B of the CEA, 1944.2. Rejection of refund claims by the Deputy Commissioner and subsequent appeal by the Department.3. Decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the Order-in-Original.4. Appeal before CESTAT, Mumbai challenging the Order-in-Appeal.5. Consideration of time bar and unjust enrichment in refund claim submissions.6. Discrepancy in the time taken for re-submitting refund claims with additional documents.7. Interpretation of the letter from the office of the Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise regarding incomplete refund claims.8. Legal precedents cited in support of the refund claim submission.9. Adjudication of the refund claims by the appellate authority.Analysis:1. The appeal involved refund claims filed beyond the period stipulated by Section 11B of the CEA, 1944. The appellant submitted 9 refund claims for excess excise duty paid due to a reduction in the sale price of goods supplied. The claims were returned initially for being incomplete, leading to the issuance of show cause notices (SCNs) alleging time bar for re-submission.2. The Deputy Commissioner adjudicated the SCNs, sanctioning 8 out of 9 refund claims but rejecting one as time-barred. The Department appealed the decision before the Commissioner (Appeals), who set aside the Order-in-Original on grounds of time bar, prompting the appellant's appeal before CESTAT, Mumbai.3. The Commissioner (Appeals) reconsidered the case post-remand, upholding the rejection of one claim as time-barred but disagreeing with the Deputy Commissioner's decision on the remaining 8 claims. The Commissioner set aside the Order-in-Original regarding the 8 claims but upheld it for the rejected claim of Rs. 1,00,414/-.4. The appellant contended that the refund claims were initially filed in time in November 2001, and the subsequent delay in re-submitting with additional documents was justified. Legal references were made to support the claim that re-submission should be considered from the original filing date.5. The Department argued that the delay in re-submitting the refund claims with proper documents rendered them incorrect, justifying the rejection by the Commissioner (Appeals).6. The CESTAT, after hearing both sides, noted that the refund claims were returned initially by the Dy. Commissioner's office due to incomplete documentation. The appellant took time to re-submit the claims, leading to the rejection of the claims by the Deputy Commissioner based on the delay.7. The CESTAT referred to legal precedents, including a decision by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, to support the appellant's position that the delay in re-submitting the claims should not invalidate the refund eligibility. The CESTAT held that the rejection based on delay was incorrect and unsustainable, granting the appellant the refund of Rs. 6,45,239/- as ordered by the adjudicating authority.