TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 82
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....und application was accompanied by documents such as Form-A refund application, statements of export invoices, ER-1 returns, extract of CENVAT credit account and declarations regarding non-availment of drawback or rebate. 1.2 During verification of the claim, the Department sought additional documents including copies of ARE-1, shipping bills, bills of lading, Chartered Accountant's certificate and correlation statements. The Appellant, citing dislocation of its records centre, sought time to retrieve and submit the documents and intimated the same vide letters dated 10.09.2012 and 24.09.2012. Thereafter, a Show Cause Notice dated 19.11.2012 was issued proposing rejection of the refund claim solely on the ground of insufficiency of documents, without alleging any violation of limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, the original adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim vide Order-in-Original No. 02/2013 dated 31.07.2013 not only on the ground of non-submission of documents but also by introducing a new ground that the claim was time-barred under Section 11B. 1.3 On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), vide Order-in-Appeal No. 35/2015 dated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ific format and mandatory particulars, which were not furnished on 27.08.2012, and therefore the claim could be treated as having been filed only upon submission of complete documents. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the records. The issue before us lies in a narrow compass, namely, whether the refund claim filed on 27.08.2012 could be rejected as time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, notwithstanding that limitation was not proposed in the Show Cause Notice and the matter had been remanded by the Commissioner (Appeals) only for verification of documents. 6. At the outset, we find it appropriate to examine the refund claim on merits. We note that it is not in dispute that the Appellant is a manufacturer-exporter and that export clearances during the relevant quarter were effected under bond. We further note that it is also undisputed that CENVAT credit accumulated on account of such exports remained unutilised. We observe that the Department has nowhere disputed either the factum of export or the nexus of the inputs and input services with the manufacture of exported goods. We find that the rejection of the refund claim is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at in the present case, eligibility to refund arises from admitted exports under Rule 5, and the documents sought are evidentiary in nature to facilitate quantification and verification, not to confer eligibility. We therefore hold, on merits, that the refund claim is otherwise admissible. 10. Having so held, we now turn to the question of limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. We note that the Appellant filed the refund claim on 27.08.2012 for exports made during the quarter ending September 2011 and that this date falls within one year from the relevant date prescribed under Section 11B. We observe that the Department's case is that the claim should be treated as having been filed only on 02.05.2016, being the date on which all documents were allegedly furnished, and therefore barred by limitation. We find that this approach is legally untenable. 11. We note that it is settled by a consistent line of decisions that the date of filing of the original refund application is the relevant date for computing limitation, and subsequent submission of documents pursuant to departmental queries does not efface or postpone the original filing. We observe that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and that limitation under Section 11B was never put to the Appellant. We therefore observe that rejection of the claim on limitation, both in the original order and again in the de novo proceedings, clearly amounts to travelling beyond the Show Cause Notice. We note that the Tribunal in CCE v. Manaksia Ltd. reported in 2008 (226) E.L.T. 538 (Tri.-Mum.) has held that such an approach vitiates the entire adjudication as being violative of principles of natural justice. 15. We further observe that after the Commissioner (Appeals), vide Order-in-Appeal dated 03.02.2015, remanded the matter only for verification of documents, the adjudicating authority was bound by the scope of remand. We note that it is settled law that issues not kept open in remand proceedings cannot be reagitated. We find that since the Department did not challenge the remand order, it attained finality and the adjudicating authority was precluded from reopening the issue of limitation. We observe that the Commissioner (Appeals), in upholding such action, failed to appreciate this settled legal position. 16. Viewed from any angle, we find that on merits, on limitation and on jurisdictional propriety, the impu....