TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal rules in favor of appellant, setting aside time-barred refund claims</h1> <h3>M/s. Ramesh Flowers Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Tirunelveli</h3> M/s. Ramesh Flowers Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Tirunelveli - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether the refund claims were time-barred.2. Whether the date of initial filing or resubmission should be considered for computing the period of limitation.3. Whether the computation of the period of one year should be from the first or last month of the respective quarter.4. Whether the absence of a deficiency memo affects the validity of the refund claim rejection.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the refund claims were time-barred:The authorities below rejected the refund claims as time-barred based on the resubmission dates rather than the initial filing dates. The appellant argued that the initial filing dates should be considered for computing the period of limitation. The Tribunal referred to several precedents, including Repco India Ltd. vs. CCE Belapur, which held that a claim returned for rectifying deficiencies should not be considered time-barred if initially filed within the stipulated period. The Tribunal concluded that the rejection of refund claims as time-barred by ignoring the initial filing dates is not sustainable.2. Whether the date of initial filing or resubmission should be considered for computing the period of limitation:The appellant contended that the date of the original filing should be used for computing the period of limitation, not the resubmission date. The Tribunal supported this view, citing the case of Repco India Ltd., where it was determined that claims returned for rectification and subsequently resubmitted should be considered as filed within the original timeframe. The Tribunal emphasized that the law on this aspect is well-settled, and the initial filing date should be used for limitation purposes.3. Whether the computation of the period of one year should be from the first or last month of the respective quarter:The department computed the period of one year from the first month of each quarter, leading to the rejection of the claims as time-barred. The appellant argued that the computation should be from the last month of the quarter. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, stating that when the notification prescribes filing refund claims for a quarter, the entire quarter should be considered as a whole. The Tribunal held that the last month of the quarter should be used for computing the period of one year, ensuring the appellant's right to refund is not unjustly denied.4. Whether the absence of a deficiency memo affects the validity of the refund claim rejection:The appellant argued that for the fourth claim, no deficiency memo was issued, which is a procedural requirement as per the CBEC Manual. The Tribunal noted that the absence of a deficiency memo and the procedural lapses in issuing it within the stipulated time further invalidated the rejection of the refund claims. The Tribunal emphasized the need for the original authority to follow due process and provide the appellant an opportunity to furnish the required documents.Conclusion:The Tribunal set aside the impugned order rejecting the refund claims as time-barred. It remanded the matter to the original authority to process the refund claims after giving the appellant an opportunity for a personal hearing and to furnish the requisite documents. The Tribunal's decision was based on established legal principles and precedents, ensuring that the appellant's right to refund is upheld.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
