Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(4) Any notification is an exception to the general law and must be strictly construed unless such strict instruction gives result to absurd results as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parle Export Pvt Ltd [1988 (38) ELT 741 (SC)]. Thus in this Appeal No: E/30095/2018 case, the appellant is not entitled to refund on the substantive grounds.

5. In the instant case, assessee filed refund claim on 31.03.2016. Later, they reversed the claim on 24.06.2016 for the period April, 2012 to March, 2015 being the accumulated credit under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules. As per the notification, the manufacturer or provider of output service cannot submit more than one claim of refund for every quarter i.e., not more than 4 claims per year and there is no bar in filing two claims or a single annual claim. The notification further stipulates in condition 3(b) that the application along with annexures must be filed before the expiry of the period specified in Section 11B of Central Excise Act. In this case, the application for refund was filed after the period specified in Section 11B and the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in holding that the notification does not prescribe the time limit. Therefore, the Revenue prayed that Order-in-Appeal may be set aside and the refund application must be set aside.