fiogf49gjkf0d
Appellate authority cannot reject refund claim on grounds/issues which are not arising out of adjudication order. Time limit of one year for filing a refund claim shall be calculated from end of quarter.
Facts Appellant filed a refund claim under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules for the period April 2012 to June 2012 on 08/05/2013. The sanctioning authority rejected a part of the refund claim on the grounds of (i) certain invoices mentioned incorrect address and (ii) FIRC was received by Appellant on 13/04/2012 and hence refund claim filed on 08/05/2013 was time barred. On appeal to Commissioner (Appeals), the claim was rejected on altogether different ground i.e. FIRC was issued in March 2012 and hence there being no export during April to June 2012, Appellant is not entitled to refund.
Held
Tribunal observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) categorically held that since the refund has to be filed quarterly the period of 1 year should be computed from the end of the quarter and held that the refund is not time-barred. In other words, reason given by adjudicating authority for denial of refund was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals). However, he rejected the refund on some other ground i.e. by interpreting the amended provision as per Notification No. 18/2012-CE(NT) dated 17/03/2012 according to which, though the FIRC was received in the month of April 2012, the export had to be considered made in the month of March 2012 and hence there being no export during the quarter from April 2012 to June 2012, refund was rejected. In such a situation, Tribunal held that it was not open for the Commissioner (Appeals) to go into the issues, which do not arise out of the adjudication order. Since refund was rejected only on time-bar, the Commissioner (Appeals) was supposed to decide the issue only on time-bar. It further held that as the refund of the Appellant was filed within 1 year from the quarter ending was within time-limit, the refund was not time-barred and assessee was entitled to refund.
