Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2023 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 1087 - AT - Central ExciseRejection of the Refund claim - Scope and validity of the addendum issued to Show Cause Notice - Period of limitation - Retrospective exemption from levy of duty of excise - Henna Powder - Henna Paste - period from 01.10.2007 to 01.03.2013 - to be classified under Chapter 14 or Chapter 33 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985? - HELD THAT:- There can be no manner of doubt that the application for refund, pursuant to a Notification issued under section 11C (1) has to be made within six months from the date of the issue of the Notification in the form referred to sub-section (1) of section 11B. In the present case, admittedly the application was not made within six months from the date of issue of the Notification. It is true that the two show cause notices that were issued to the respondent did not state that the refund applications were liable to be rejected for the reason that they were not filed within six months from the date of issue of the notification, but the Addendums that were subsequently issued did specifically allege that the refund applications were time barred because they were filed after the expiry of six months from the date of issue of the Notification. The Addendum, as noticed above, was issued to add something to the already issued show cause notices. The show cause notices did mention the issuance of the Notification and also the date on which the refund applications were filed. In the present case the factual position had not changed and the Addendums had called upon the respondent to explain why the refund application should not be rejected as being barred by time on the facts stated in the show cause notice. The aforesaid two decisions rendered in WIPRO INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY VERSUS COMMR. OF C. EX., BANGALORE [1998 (10) TMI 205 - CEGAT, MADRAS] and M/S. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX AHMEDABAD [2014 (4) TMI 174 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] would, therefore, not help the respondent. The refund applications filed by the respondent on 15.12.2017 pursuant to the issuance of the Notification dated 24.04.2017 was, therefore, liable to be rejected for the reason that it was not filed within the period of six months from the date of issue of the Notification as specified in the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 11C. The Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, committed an error in granting relief to the respondent. In this view of the matter, it would not be necessary to examine whether the refund application was also hit by the bar of unjust enrichment. The order dated 17.12.2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) deserves to be set aside and is set aside - Appeal allowed.
|