Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 949 - AT - Central ExciseRefund of duty paid - filing of refund claim before the wrong jurisdiction - payment of duty on exempted goods i.e bitumen under N/N. 108/95-CE dated 28.08.1995 - Scope of SCN - refund denied on the ground that there is no provision of refund under N/N. 108/95-CE dated 28.08.1995 - time limitation - Scope of SCN. Held that:- Although as per the notification, the supplier of bitumen was not required to pay duty in terms of Notification No. 108/95- CE dated 28.08.1995, but the supplier has supplied the goods on payment of duty to the appellant and it is a fact that as per the said notification duty was not payable on the goods. As per the notification bitumen was not liable to pay duty. In that circumstances, the persons who has suffered duty on the said goods is entitled to file refund claim in terms of the proviso to Section 11(B)(2)(e) of the Central Excise Act. The refund claims sought to be rejected on the ground that the appellant has executed project in Jhajjar and procured bitumen from various manufacturer but did not fall under the jurisdiction of that Division - Held that:- In a case where the assessee is not registered with the Central Excise Department, where to file refund claim of duty borne by him has not been prescribed under the Central Excise Act - further, if the adjudicating authority was of the view that the appellant has not filed refund claim with the authorities which is not competent to entertain the refund claim, he would have transferred the application for refund claim before the competent authority but could not have rejected the refund claim simply on the ground that he had no jurisdiction. Time limitation - Section 11B of the Act - Held that:- Admittedly, in this case, the refund claim initially was filed by the appellant before the DGFT and DGFT has rejected their refund claim only on 10.03.2013, thereafter the refund claim was filed by the appellant on 26.08.2013. In these circumstances, limitation for filing the refund claim was start on 10.06.2013 i.e. relevant date and the refund claim was filed in time. Revenue also contested that as the refund claim has been rejected by the DGFT, therefore, the appellant cannot file the refund claim - Held that:- It is not a case of appeal from one authority to another, but it is a case of filing the refund claim with two independent authorities when both are competent to consider the refund claim - the time spent in pursuing its remedy before the DGFT is to be excluded - refund claim is within time. Scope of SCN - refund claim in the impugned order has been denied on the ground which were not alleged in the show cause notice - Held that:- The said grounds cannot be entertained by the appellate authority as those grounds are not the part of the show cause notice and the ld. Commissioner (A) cannot travel beyond the allegation made in the show cause notice. The appellant is entitled for refund claim in terms of Notification No. 108/95-CE dated 18.08.1995 of the duty paid on bitumen as the appellant has borne the duty on the bitumen - refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|