2017 (9) TMI 1245 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal remands appeals for document verification, overturns limitation ruling.

M/s. Promac Engineering Industries Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax Bangalore And Vice-Versa

The Tribunal remanded four appeals back to the original authority for document verification within three months. The appellants were instructed to ... Refund claim - Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 - time limitation u/s 11B of the CEA, 1944 - case of Revenue is that refunds were rejected as the appellants have failed to furnish the documents in support of their claims - Held that: - appeals are required to be remanded back to the original authority for verification of the documents which may be produced by the appellants in support of their claim for refund - It is expected from the appellant to render proper assistance to the original authority for verification of the documents as the documents are voluminous in nature - appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues:1. Appellants challenging rejection of refund claims by Commissioner (A).2. Department appealing against findings of Commissioner (A) regarding limitation under Section 11B.3. Disposal of appeals related to identical issues by the Tribunal.Analysis:1. The appellants, manufacturers of Plant & Machinery, filed appeals against the rejection of refund claims by the Commissioner (A). The appeals related to availed CENVAT credit on inputs and services used in manufacturing final products for export. The Commissioner (A) rejected some claims based on limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and others for not submitting required documents for verification.2. The Department also appealed against the Commissioner (A)'s findings on limitation under Section 11B. The Commissioner (A) held that this limitation does not apply to refund claims under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, citing a Karnataka High Court decision. However, the Department argued that the limitation does apply, referencing a Gujarat High Court decision and an apex court dismissal of an appeal against it. The Tribunal agreed with the Department, setting aside the Commissioner (A)'s findings on limitation.3. Since all appeals dealt with similar issues, the Tribunal disposed of the appeals collectively. The Tribunal found that the original authority had not properly verified the documents submitted by the appellants. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded four appeals back to the original authority for document verification within three months. The appellants were instructed to cooperate in the verification process. The Department's appeal was allowed, setting aside the Commissioner (A)'s view on limitation. The Tribunal's decision was pronounced on 29/08/2017.