Century Pulp & Paper vs C.C.E. & S.T.-Meerut-Ii

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. MRT-EXCUS-2002-APPEAL-05/2014-15 dt. 22.04.2014 passed by the Commissioner (appeals), Custom & Central Excise, Meerut-II]

Century Pulp & Paper Appellant

Vs.

C.C.E. & S.T.-Meerut-II Respondent

Appearance: Sh. Ashish Vaish (CA) for the appellant

Sh. V.P. Batra, DR for the respondent

Coram: Honble Sh. Manmohan Singh, Member (Technical)

FINAL ORDER NO. 50009/2015

Per: Manmohan Singh

Per: Manmohan Singh

Appellant has come in appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. MRT-EXCUS-2002-APPEAL-05/2014-15 dated 22/4/2014 wherein their appeal was rejected on the ground of limitation by the Commissioner (appeal).

2. Appellant has pleaded that Adjudicating Authority has rejected their refund claim on the ground that claim was filed beyond the prescribed limit of time as prescribed in para 3 (g) of the notification no. 41/12 dated 29/6/2014. Claim was rejected for a portion of refund claim amounting to Rs. 6,60,362/- on Shipping bills of goods exported before 21/11/2012 which was hit by limitation of time as per notification referred supra.

3. Appellant claimed that substantive benefit of refund could not be denied for procedural lapse. They also stated that but for the dispute of time bar, there was no other reason for disallowance of claim. On the other side, ld. DR reiterated the finding of the Commissioner (appeal) as contained in her Order-in-appeal.

4. I have examined the issue involved in the present appeal. It is for consideration whether referred claim filed after the prescribed limitation period, as laid in para 3 (g) of the notification no. 41/2012 dated 29/6/2012, could be considered for sanction even if it has been filed beyond the limitation period. I find the Commissioner (appeal) has examined the issue detailed in para 5.2 of her order which is self-explanatory which is reproduced for ready reference:

The issue relates to rejection of refund claim on the ground that the claim was filed beyond the prescribed limit of time as laid down in para 3 (g) of the notification No. 41/2012 dt. 29.06.2012. The appellant filed the refund claim of service tax paid on various services relating to export of goods during the period September, 2012 to March, 2013 on 21.11.2013 under the notification No. 41/2012 dt. 29.06.2012. The adjudicating authority rejected a portion of refund claim amounting to Rs. 6,60,362/- on shipping bills of goods exported before 21.11.2012, i.e., beyond the prescribed limit of time as laid down in para 3 (g) of the notification No. 41/2012 dt. 29.06.2012 which reads as under:

3 (g)- the claim for rebate of service tax paid on the specified services used for export of goods shall be filed within one year from the date of export of the said goods.

It is settled law that the refund claim can be entertained by the Central Excise authorities only if it is within the time limit provided in the statute. In this context, reliance is placed on the Honble Supreme Courts judgment in the case of Porcelain Electrical Manufacturing Co. Vs. CCE, 1998 (98) E.L.T. 583 (SC), wherein it has been held that Refund Limitation-Refund claim filed before Departmental authorities to be governed by the time limit provided under the statute-General Law of Limitation not available.

5. I fully agree with the finding of the Commissioner (appeal) and do not find any force in the appeal of the appellant claiming that their substantial right should be granted even if they have failed to fulfill the requirement0 of limitation.

6. Appeal is rejected.

(Manmohan Singh)

Member (Technical)

RITU consideration whether referred claim filed after the prescribed

3

Appeal No. ST/54146/2014-ST[SM]