2026 (3) TMI 1244 - AT - Central Excise

Procedural delay in filing exemption statement does not defeat area-based excise refund where substantive conditions are met.

Belated filing of the statement required under Notification No. 01/2010-CE was held to be a procedural lapse and not a ground to deny area-based excise ... Refund entitlement - Procedural conditions in exemption notification - area-based excise exemption and refund on fulfilment of the substantive conditions - belated filing of the statement prescribed under Notification No. 01/2010-CE dated 06.02.2010 under Para 4(a) or 5(d). Whether the statements filed belatedly by the Appellant are in violation of the condition of Para 4(a) or 5(d) of the Notification No. 1/2010-CE dated 06.02.2010 and on that basis, can refund be rejected?​​​​​​​ - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal held that the dispute stood covered by its earlier decisions in the case of M/s Saraswati Agro Chemicals India Ltd [2018 (3) TMI 263 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH] and M/s Kaiser Industries Ltd.[2018 (8) TMI 9 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH], which had treated the requirement of filing the statement within the prescribed time under the notification as procedural in nature. A delay in such filing was therefore only a procedural lapse and not a fatal breach disentitling the appellant from the exemption-linked refund. Following the same reasoning, the Tribunal found that denial of refund solely on account of belated submission of the statement was unsustainable. [Paras 7, 8, 9] The impugned appellate order was set aside and the appellant's claim for refund was restored with consequential relief according to law. Final Conclusion: The Tribunal held that belated filing of the prescribed statement under the notification was only a procedural lapse and could not defeat the refund claim. The order denying the refund on that ground was therefore set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief. Issues: Whether belated filing of the statement prescribed under Notification No. 01/2010-CE dated 06.02.2010 under Para 4(a) or 5(d) disentitles the assessee from refund or exemption.Analysis: The notification granted area-based excise exemption and refund on fulfilment of the substantive conditions, while the filing of the prescribed statement was treated as a procedural requirement. The delay in filing the statement did not affect the underlying eligibility for the benefit, and the issue had already been settled by earlier Tribunal decisions holding that such delayed compliance is not fatal where substantive conditions are otherwise satisfied.Conclusion: The delayed filing was only a procedural lapse and did not justify denial of the refund benefit. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.Final Conclusion: The departmental appeal could not be sustained, and the assessee remained entitled to the refund relief arising from the notification.Ratio Decidendi: Where a notification confers a substantive exemption or refund benefit, delayed compliance with a procedural filing requirement does not defeat the benefit if the substantive conditions are otherwise fulfilled.