2025 (6) TMI 1956 - AT - Central Excise

Rejection of appeal - time limitation - rejection of appeals on the ground that Section 83 of the Finance Act 1994 does not cover appeals filed under Section 35E of the Central Excise Act 1944 - HELD THAT - A plain reading of the subclause (c) of Clause 2 makes it clear that manufacturer/exporter can claim exemption by filing the refund of service tax paid on specified services with the Assistant Commissioner within the jurisdiction of the factory. In the present cases the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of iron ore lumps and iron ore fines are not registered with the Central Excise but required to file refund claim in Form A-2 as per subclause (c) Clause (2). Thus the appeal is required to be filed under Section 35E(ii) in view of specific mention of the procedure under the said N/N. 17/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009. On the issue of time limit in filing the appeals it is found from the records that the impugned order was communicated to the appellant-department on 09.11.2010 and the appeals were filed on 08.02.2011; hence these Appeals were filed within time. The matters are remanded to the extent of rejecting the appeals of the Revenue to consider the same on merit and pass an appropriate order - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

- Whether the appeals filed by the Revenue under Section 35E(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against refund orders passed under Notification No.17/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009 are maintainable.

- Whether the limitation period prescribed under Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 applies to appeals filed under Section 35E of the Central Excise Act, 1944, thereby rendering the appeals barred by limitation.

- The proper procedural framework for claiming refund of service tax under Notification No.17/2009-ST and the corresponding appellate remedy.

- Whether the appeals filed by the Revenue were within the prescribed time limit.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Maintainability of Appeals Filed Under Section 35E(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The appeals were filed under Section 35E(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which governs appeals against orders passed by adjudicating authorities under the Central Excise Act. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) had rejected the appeals on the ground that Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 (which deals with limitation for appeals in service tax matters) does not incorporate Section 35E(2) of the Central Excise Act, thus rendering the appeals barred by limitation.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal examined Notification No.17/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009, which provides the procedure for claiming refund of service tax paid on specified services by exporters. Clause 2(c) of the Notification mandates that an exporter not registered under Central Excise must obtain a service tax code number by filing a declaration in Form A-2 to the Assistant or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise having jurisdiction over the registered or head office. This indicates that the refund claims fall within the purview of the Central Excise Act procedures.

The Tribunal observed that the appeals against orders arising from refund claims under this Notification are required to be filed under Section 35E(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as explicitly stated in the procedural requirements of the Notification. Thus, the appeals filed by the Revenue under Section 35E(2) are maintainable and correctly filed under the Central Excise Act framework.

Key Evidence and Findings: The Notification's detailed provisions, particularly Clause 2(c), were pivotal in establishing the procedural nexus with the Central Excise Act. The factual matrix revealed that the respondents were manufacturers of iron ore lumps and fines, not registered under Central Excise, but had filed refund claims as per the Notification's procedure.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the procedural mandates of the Notification and the statutory provisions of Section 35E(2), concluding that the appeals filed under this Section were proper and maintainable.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue contended that the appeals were barred by limitation as per Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, which does not incorporate Section 35E(2). The Tribunal rejected this contention, relying on the specific procedural directions in the Notification and the Central Excise Act's provisions.

Conclusion: The appeals filed under Section 35E(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are maintainable against refund orders passed under Notification No.17/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009.

Issue 2: Applicability of Limitation Period and Timeliness of Appeals

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 prescribes a limitation period of three months for filing appeals in service tax matters. The Commissioner (Appeals) had rejected the appeals on the ground that the appeals were barred by limitation because Section 35E(2) was not incorporated under Section 83.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the impugned orders dated 04.11.2010 were received by the Commissionerate on 09.11.2010, as evidenced by the acknowledgment seal. The appeals were filed on 08.02.2011. Counting three months from 09.11.2010, the last date for filing the appeals was 09.02.2011. Since the appeals were filed on 08.02.2011, they were within the prescribed limitation period.

Key Evidence and Findings: The acknowledgment seal on the impugned orders and the dates of filing of the appeals were crucial documentary evidence establishing the timeline.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the three-month limitation period strictly and found the appeals timely filed.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue argued that the limitation period was not applicable as per Section 83 for appeals under Section 35E(2). The Tribunal, however, found that since the appeals were filed within three months from the date of receipt of orders, the issue of limitation did not arise.

Conclusion: The appeals were filed within the prescribed limitation period and are not barred by limitation.

Issue 3: Procedural Requirements under Notification No.17/2009-ST and Appropriate Forum for Appeals

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Notification No.17/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009 outlines the procedure for claiming refund of service tax paid on specified services by exporters. Clause 2 specifies the manner of claiming exemption, including registration requirements and filing of declarations.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal emphasized the procedural clarity in the Notification, particularly subclause (c) of Clause 2, which requires exporters not registered under Central Excise to file a declaration in Form A-2 with the Assistant or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise. This procedural step indicates that refund claims and consequent appeals fall within the Central Excise Act's jurisdiction.

Key Evidence and Findings: The Notification's text and the factual situation of the respondents (manufacturers not registered under Central Excise) were determinative in ascertaining the procedural route.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the Notification's procedural mandates to the facts, concluding that the appeals against refund orders are to be filed under Section 35E(2) of the Central Excise Act.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue's argument that appeals should be governed by the Finance Act, 1994 was rejected in light of the specific procedural provisions in the Notification.

Conclusion: The procedural requirements under Notification No.17/2009-ST direct that refund claims and appeals therefrom are to be processed under the Central Excise Act regime.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

"A plain reading of the subclause (c) of Clause 2, it is clear that manufacturer/exporter can claim exemption by filing the refund of service tax paid on specified services with the Assistant Commissioner within the jurisdiction of the factory. In the present cases, the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of iron ore lumps and iron ore fines, are not registered with the Central Excise but required to file refund claim in Form A-2 as per subclause (c) Clause (2). Thus, the appeal is required to be filed under Section 35E(ii) in view of specific mention of the procedure under the said Notification No.17/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009."

"On the issue of time limit in filing the appeals, we find from the records that the impugned order was communicated to the appellant-department on 09.11.2010 and the appeals were filed on 08.02.2011; hence, these Appeals were filed within time."

"In the result, matters are remanded to the extent of rejecting the appeals of the Revenue to consider the same on merit and pass an appropriate order. Needless to mention that principles of natural justice be followed. Appeals are allowed by way of remand."

Core Principles Established:

• Appeals against refund orders under Notification No.17/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009 are maintainable under Section 35E(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
• The limitation period prescribed under Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 does not bar appeals filed under Section 35E(2) if filed within three months from the date of receipt of the order.
• The procedural requirements specified in the Notification take precedence in determining the appropriate forum and procedure for refund claims and appeals.
• Natural justice principles must be observed in adjudicating such appeals on merit.

Final Determinations:

• The appeals filed by the Revenue under Section 35E(2) of the Central Excise Act are maintainable and were filed within the prescribed limitation period.
• The rejection of appeals on the ground of limitation by the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside.
• The matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for consideration on merit in accordance with law and principles of natural justice.