2025 (1) TMI 533 - AT - Central Excise

CESTAT allows export refund appeal, rules original submission date determines Section 11B limitation period

Vishay Transducers Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Chennai

Vishay Transducers Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Chennai - TMI 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this judgment are:Whether the refund claim filed by the appellant was time-barred under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and the relevant notifications and provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944.Whether the date of the original submission or the date of resubmission of the refund claim should be considered for determining the timeliness of the claim.Whether the returning of the refund claim by the Assistant Commissioner due to alleged deficiencies was permissible under the law.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Timeliness of the Refund ClaimRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The appellant's refund claim was initially rejected as time-barred under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and Notification No. 5/2006 CE (NT) dated 14.03.2006, read with Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal referenced precedents such as Abhedya Industries Ltd v CCE & ST, Hyderabad-III and Balmer Lawrie & Co v CCE, Kolkata-VI, which established that the date of the original submission should be considered for limitation purposes.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal determined that the original submission date should be the relevant date for assessing the timeliness of the refund claim. The court emphasized that the returning of the claim was not a valid procedure under the law.Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal found that the appellant's original claim was acknowledged on 23.11.2012, and any deficiencies should have been addressed without returning the claim.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the legal principle that the original submission date is the relevant date for determining the timeliness of the claim, thus ruling that the claim was not time-barred.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal dismissed the respondent's argument that the claim was time-barred, citing established legal precedents that supported the appellant's position.Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the refund claim was not time-barred, and the original submission date should be considered for limitation purposes.Issue 2: Legality of Returning the Refund ClaimRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Tribunal referenced the decision in United Phosphorous Ltd v Union of India, which held that returning a refund claim is not contemplated by the provisions of the Central Excise Act or its rules.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal reasoned that the Assistant Commissioner was obliged to make an order on the merits of the refund application rather than returning it.Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal noted that the refund claim was returned without a formal rejection, which was contrary to the statutory obligations of the Assistant Commissioner.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the legal principle that returning a refund claim without a decision on its merits is improper and not supported by the law.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal rejected the respondent's justification for returning the claim, aligning with the appellant's argument that it was not permissible under the law.Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the act of returning the refund claim was unlawful, and the claim should have been processed based on its original submission date.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: The Tribunal quoted, 'The course adopted by the Assistant Commissioner, of returning the claim application without making an order thereon amounts to refusal to perform the statutory duty imposed on him to consider the application and make an order thereof, in accordance with law.'Core Principles Established: The Tribunal established that the date of the original submission of a refund claim is the relevant date for determining the timeliness under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Additionally, it held that returning a refund claim is not a permissible action under the law.Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities, ruling that the refund claim was not time-barred and should be processed on its merits based on the original submission date of 23.11.2012.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned orders and remitting the matter back to the jurisdictional adjudicating authority to process the refund claim on its merits.