The Allahabad Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the production of CA Certificate after 10 years is nothing but an afterthought exercise for claiming refund.
The bench of P.K. Choudhary (Judicial Member) and Sanjiv Srivastava (Technical Member) has observed that the refund claim is filed for the period February, 2012 to June 2012 and the order is of 29.04.2013, production of a CA certificate which was later than ten years, the date when the order was passed, do not serve any purpose and it was never ever produced before the Original Authority or before the First Appellate Authority. It was not even the case of the appellant that the Chartered Account certificate was certified with this regard. Such a certificate should be considered nothing but an afterthought exercise, the same needs to be rejected without any further consideration.
The Appellant/assessee is a manufacturer of Dry Cell Batteries, falling under Chapter Heading No.85061000 of first schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They have filed a refund claim on 13.07.2012 as per Section 11B of Central Excise Act for the reason that the refund claim related to excess payment of excise duty on 1015 MJ Battery-AA R6/1.5V-Packed: Special Promotional Pack:2U(Pcs) free with select Eveready CFLs from their factory.
The refund claim was verified and range superintendent submitted that refund would not be admissible to the appellant. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant asking them to show cause as to why the refund claim filed by them for Rs.15,31,742/- should not be rejected.
Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claim both on merits and also on the ground of unjust enrichment.
The tribunal held that nothing has been brought on record to show that the self assessment made by the appellant at the time of clearance of these goods was ever appealed against by the appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals) in terms of Section 35 of Central Excise Act, 1944 or the order of self assessment has been modified. In absence of such modification the submissions made by the appellant in these proceedings under Section 11B challenging the self assessment made for claiming this refund cannot be said to be proper.
Read More: Once Suppression Of Facts Is Established, Extended Period Of Limitation Can Be Invoked: CESTAT
Case Details
Case Title: M/s Eveready Industries India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida
Case No.: Excise Appeal No.59895 of 2013
Date: 06/01/2025
Counsel For Appellant: Dhruv Tiwari
Counsel For Respondent: A.K. Choudhary
