Rayban Sun Optics India Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (Rajasthan High Court)
Rajasthan High Court held that department is under a statutory obligation to refund the amount with interest @12% p.a.. Therefore, rejection of claim of refund vide order dated 04th January 2023, is unsustainable in the eye of law.
Facts- The petitioner is engaged in manufacture of Sunglasses and Spectacle frames falling under Chapter 90 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Notably, it appears that petitioner had not reversed/deposited the CENVAT Credit involved in the inputs written off by it in its balance sheet for the A.Y. 2000-2001. Therefore, a show cause notice dated 18th May 2004 was issued to petitioner demanding amount of Rs.16,89,669/- along with interest and penalty. The said show cause notice culminated in the demand vide Order-in-Original dated 21st October 2004. Commissioner (A) rejected the appeal. CESTAT accepted the appeal and set aside the impugned order.
Accordingly, the refund claim filed by the petitioner was rejected holding the claim to be time barred in terms of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Thus, the present writ.
Conclusion- Held that that respondent-department is under a statutory obligation to refund the said amount with interest. Therefore, rejection of claim of refund vide order dated 04th January 2023, is unsustainable in the eye of law.
