Delay in filing application for refund of duty

[wig sinbad]

The manufacturer is eligible for refund of duty deposited ; PLA - Central Excise in terms of Notification 56/2002-CE dated 14/11/2002. The manufacturer in terms of Para 2B(a) of the notification referred to above was expected to file the claim for refund before the 7th of the next month. However he has filed the application for refund of PLA belatedly. The application was to be filed by 07/06/2015. However the application was filed on 24/06/2015. The refund was issued by the Department. However subsequently the Revenue has gone in appeal before the LD CCE (Appeals) stating that the refund was wrongly issed. Please advise on the manufacturers response and any case laws which favour the manufacturer.

[Ganeshan Kalyani]

Sir, what stand that department is taking and what is your point of concern. please reply.

Let us make the discussion interactive. Thanks.

[wig sinbad]

Sir,

The Department has earlier issued refund to the manufacturer. But now the Department has gone in Appeal to the LD CCE Appeals and has claimed that the refund of duty deposited has been wrongly made since the application for refund was filed belatedly.

In support the Department has relied upon the following case laws

1. Eagle Flask Industries Ltd vs CCE Pune ; 2004(9) TMI 102(SC) ; 2004(171) ELT 296(SC)

2. State of Jharkhand vs Ambay Cements ; 2004(11) TMI 319(SC); 2004(178) ELT 55(SC)

The matter of concern is that the manufacturer sells goods at low prices and the refund of excise duty paid makes the unit competitive. If refunds made have to be returned the manufacturer will be unable to continue as a financially viable unit

[Ganeshan Kalyani]

Sir, the cited case laws pertains to declaration not submitted as required for availing the benefit of the referred notification as per the condition given in the notification. Here in your case it is not the declaration but the return and value of goods . In my view departments contention can be challenged. Thanks.

AI Summary

Delay in filing refund claim may not defeat entitlement where reliance on declaration cases is distinguishable. A manufacturer received an excise duty refund under a notification but filed the refund claim after the prescribed monthly deadline; the Department has appealed, relying on cases about non submission of declarations, while commentators argue those precedents concern declaration requirements not present here and that the Department's contention as to late filing can be challenged by distinguishing declaration based forfeiture from procedural delay and by scrutinising returns and valuation.