TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 510
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bsequently returned for want of some documents. The appellant have re-submitted the claim on 08.11.2017. Though the refund claim was initially sanctioned, the department had filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) challenging the sanctioned order. The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for verification without expressing any specific view. Meanwhile, the sanctioning authority has issued a protective show cause notice for recovery of erroneous refund claim after remand by the Learned Commissioner (Appeals). The adjudicating authority decided the show cause notice whereby, he ordered for recovery of the erroneous refund along with interest. Against this order, the appellant filed appeal before the Comm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alf of the Revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. 04. On careful consideration and perusal of records, I find that as regard the date of filing the refund claim the adjudicating authority in the Order-In-Original has recorded the fact in para 16 which is reproduced below:- "16. The contention of the claimant that they have submitted their request for refund on 03.08.2016. I find that the refund application dated 03.08.2016 has been received by this office on 30.08.2016 and the same has been returned to the claimant for want of certain documents which was not submitted to this office along with refund claim. Further, I observe that in response the claimant has submitted a letter dated 03.08.2016 received by this of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....date will be a date of payment of duty and not from the date of order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SRF Industries. However, the appellant initially filed the refund claim which was returned and then they resubmitted subsequently. In this case the initial filing of refund claim shall be considered as date of filing of refund claim and if it is within one year from the date of payment of duty then the same cannot be rejected on time bar. As regard unjust enrichment, I find that the appellant have submitted only Chartered Accountant Certificate however they have not submitted any documentary evidence in support of their claim such as the price structure of the mobile, pre and post payment of excess Customs duty they also not submitt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eipt of such application till the date of refund of such duty:" It makes it clear when even read with Section 11BB of Central Excise Act that for the payment of interest after three months from the date of receipt of refund application, the applicant shall be entitled for the interest at the rate as prescribed. The provision is nowhere expressing about "application" to be called so only in case it is supported by the requisite documents. The law has been settled that the fiscal legislation has to be construed strictly and one has to look merely at what is said in the relevant provision. There is nothing to be read in or nothing to be implied and there is no room for any intentment as it was held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Aj....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inction in the date of receipt of application from that of the receipt of the application complete in all respect. The explanation as relied upon by Commissioner (Appeals) of some Custom Refund Regulations cannot supersede the statute and the mandate thereof in the Section 11B and 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In view of the entire above discussion, the Order in hand is set aside; Appeal stands allowed. Consequential benefits to follow." • RUBBER WOOD INDIA (P) LTD.- 2006 (206) E.L.T. 536 (Tri.-Bang.) "3. On a careful consideration, it is seen that the refund application was filed within time and within six months from the date of the payment of duty. The defects were rectified and the refund application was re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... refund claim initially on 11-12-2002, for an amount of Rs. 9,06,932/- involving the period, 13-2-2001 to 30-4-2002. The said refund claim was subsequently returned to the Appellant for removal of defects by the Assistant Commissioner on 5-3-2003. Accordingly, the defects were removed and the refund claim was again submitted on 12-6-2003. It is the contention of the Appellant that the date of refund claim be considered as 11th December, 2002, whereas the Revenue submits that it was complete in all respects, when filed on 12th June, 2003, hence that should be taken as the filing date. In rejecting the refund claim as time-barred, both the authorities below had observed that the date on which refund claim was filed only after removal of defec....