BHEL's Excise Refund Appeal Shouldn't Have Been Dismissed Over Wrong Date In Appeal Proforma: CESTAT Delhi

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Delhi has recently held that the Commissioner (Appeals) should not have dismissed Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited's excise duty refund appeal as time-barred solely on the basis of the date mentioned in the appeal proforma, without examining its submissions and affidavit explaining the delay.

A bench of Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals), Bhopal, after finding that BHEL's appeal against rejection of its refund claims for the period 2011-12 to 2017-18 upto June 30, 2017 had been dismissed as being beyond the condonable period of 90 days.

The refund claims had arisen on finalisation of provisional assessments under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

BHEL's counsel argued before the Tribunal that the Assistant Commissioner had rejected the claims without issuing a show cause notice or granting a personal hearing.

The dispute before the Tribunal centred on the correct date of receipt of the original order. BHEL contended that the order had been wrongly addressed to “ADGM-Taxation”, a designation that did not exist in the organisation, whereas the concerned officer held the designation of Additional General Manager (Finance).

BHEL said the wrongly addressed order had to move through various internal departments and divisions before reaching the concerned officer. It said the order was actually received by the concerned person on September 9, 2024, and not on September 6, 2024 as inadvertently mentioned in the appeal proforma.

According to BHEL, it had filed submissions and an affidavit before the Commissioner (Appeals) explaining these circumstances. However, the Commissioner proceeded on the basis of the date mentioned in the proforma and held that the appeal had been filed beyond the condonable period.

The tribunal noted that BHEL is a large manufacturing company with multiple units, blocks and departments. It observed that it was understandable that an order addressed to a non-existent designation would take time to reach the correct officer through internal routing.

“I find that the learned Commissioner(Appeals) did not go through the submissions of the appellants and the contents of the affidavit, but proceeded to hold that the date of receipt of the impugned order was 06.09.2024 on the basis of the date mentioned in the proforma of appeal, which the appellants claim to be a clerical error,” the tribunal said.

The tribunal further observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not appreciated the facts of the case in the proper perspective and had not given findings on the submissions made by BHEL.

It accordingly remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh consideration, directing that it be decided expeditiously within 12 weeks after taking into account the submissions, affidavit, and the facts and circumstances of the case.