The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) set aside order rejecting refund as there was compliance of condition in the excise notification by filing RT-12 returns regularly.
The appellant is a manufacturer of Tea in Assam. They availed the benefit of Notification 33/99-CE dated 08/07/1999. The Appellant filed refund claims totally amounting to Rs.42,88,600/- in respect of the Tea and Tea waste manufactured and cleared during the period 8/99 to February 2003, other than by way of utilization of Cenvat credit, as provided for in Para 2(b) of the said notification.
The refund claims were sanctioned by the Assistant commissioner, however, on appeal by the department the Commissioner ( Appeals ) set aside the refund claims sanctioned to the appellant. Aggrieved against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner ( Appeals ), the appellant has filed this appeal.
The counsel for the appellant submitted that the refund applications were filed in terms of Notification 33/99-CE dated 08/07/1999. Hence, the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are not applicable in this case. Thus, there is no time limit for filing the refund claims under the Notification 33/99 dated 08/07/99.
It was further submitted that once duty has been paid on the specified goods and RT-12 returns are filed and all necessary documents required for processing the refund claims are filed, the benefit of the notification cannot be denied on the ground of late filing of statement as mentioned in para 2(a) of the said notification.
The D.R submitted that filing of statement within 7 days of the next month in which the duty has been paid from the account current, is a mandatory requirement which must be complied with by the appellant to claim the refund, as held by the Guwahati High Court in the case of Chamong Tea Company Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Dibrugarh.
The issue involved in the present appeal is eligibility of refund claim filed by the appellant. The refund claims have been filed by the appellant in terms of Notification 33/99 CE dated 08/07/99. We observe the Board has clarified vide letter No.354/8/98-CE TRU ( Part-II ) dated 06/10/1999 that the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are not applicable in case of refunds claimed under Notification 33/99-CE dated 08/07/99.
A Two-Member Bench comprising R Muralidhar, Judicial Member and K Anpazhakan, Technical Member observed that “Thus, the Appellant could not have filed the refund application till confirmation of the substantial expansion condition by the department. However, we find that the Appellant has filed RT-12 returns regularly wherein they have categorically mentioned the duty paid by them from the account current. We observe the details disclosed in the RT-12 return would be sufficient to fulfil the Clause 2(a) of the Notification 33/99-CE dated 08/07/99.”
“In the present case we find that there are enough grounds for the appellant not filing the statement within the stipulated time limit. However, we observe that they have fulfilled the condition 2(a) by filing the RT-12 returns regularly. Accordingly, we find that the decision cited by the D.R is distinguishable while considering the facts and circumstances of the present case. We observe that substantial benefit like refund cannot be denied on account of procedural infirmities. Since, the Appellant has fulfilled the procedural requirement as mentioned in Clause 2(a) of Notification 33/99-CE dated 08/07/99, we hold that the refund applications filed by the appellant cannot be rejected on the procedural grounds of non compliance of Clause 2(a) of notification 33/99-CE dated 08/07/99” the Bench concluded.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
