Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Hindustan Copper Ltd vs Cce, Jaipur-Ii on 31 December, 2015
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI, PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI
Date of Hearing/ Decision:31.12.2015
Excise Appeal No.E/51806/2015-EX(SM)
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.74(SLM)CE/JPR/2015 dated 24.02.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur-II]
M/s. Hindustan Copper Ltd. ..Appellants
Vs.
CCE, Jaipur-II ..Respondent
Appearance:
Rep. by Shri Ranjit K. Ranjan, Advocate for the appellant. Rep. by Shri G.R. Singh, AR for the respondent. For approval and signature:
Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) 1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Coram: Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical)
Final Order No. dated:31.12.2015
Per B. Ravichandran:
The appeal is against the Order dated 24.02.2015 of the Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur. Certain proceedings were initiated against the appellant for demanding central excise duty of Rs.4,62,126/- being duty payable on clearance of capital goods/scrap on which cenvat credit has been availed. On conclusion of the proceedings, the demand for the said amount was confirmed and appropriated against the amount already debited by the appellant. Penalties were also imposed on the appellant. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order dated 3.5.2011 upheld a demand of Rs.2,04,100/- along with interest and equal penalty. He dropped the demand of Rs.2,58,025/-. The present dispute is regarding claim of refund for the amount of demand dropped by the Commissioner (/appeals). A show cause notice dated 8.4.2013 was issued to the appellant to reject the refund claim of Rs.2,58,025/ filed on 23.03.2013 on the ground of time bar. The Original Authority vide his order dated 31.05.2013 rejected the claim as time bar. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur vide his impugned order upheld the said rejection of refund on the ground of time bar. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed the present appeal.
2. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the order-in-appeal dated 3.5.2011 dropped the demand of Rs.2,58,025/- and as such, the present claim is consequential one. He further submits that they have sent a fax on 19.09.2011 staking their claim for refund of this amount and that the communication should be treated as a claim and as such, the refund should be sanctioned.
3. Ld. AR reiterated the findings of the Lower Authorities. He drew my attention to para-9 and 12 of the order of the Original Authority which give a finding that the communication dated 19.09.2011 is not relating to any claim for refund and is actually relating to recovery of outstanding dues consequent to the Appellate Order dated 3.5.2011.
4. Having heard both the sides, I find the only point for decision is whether or not the appellant filed the claim for refund in time as per Section 11 B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. As per Section 11 B, the relevant date means in case where the duty becomes refundable as consequent of judgement, decree, order, or direction of appellate authority, appellate Tribunal, or any court, the date of such judgement, decree, order, or direction. It is an admitted fact that the present claim for refund arose consequent on the order dated 3.5.2011 of the Commissioner (Appeals). The refund claim in proper form was filed by the appellant on 23.02.2013. I find that the appellants plea that their communication dated 19.09.2011 addressed to the Superintendent of Central Excise, in connection with the recovery proceedings of arrears cannot be accepted. Firstly, such fax communication dated 19.09.2011 could not be placed on record by the appellant for examination of the contents. Secondly, the Original Authority had given a factual finding as to whether the said communication can be treated as a valid document for determining the relevant date. He recorded that the said communication deals with recovery of outstanding arrears and also mentions about amount of Rs.2,58,025/- due to the appellant. It is also to be noted that immediately on receipt of communication dated 19.09.2011, the Dy. Commissioner informed the appellant to file a claim as per procedure and, if necessary, may seek guidance of jurisdictional Range Officers. Even after receipt of such communication, the appellant did not file any claim for refund though they had much more than six months time before the time limit. The claim was filed only on 23.02.2013.
5. Considering the above factual position, I find that the lower authorities concurrent findings cannot be faulted. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
[Order dictated & pronounced in open court] ( B. Ravichandran ) Member (Technical) Ckp.
1