#refund claim

The CESTAT Chennai bench held that the limitation period for a refund claim under Section 27(1B)(c) Customs Act starts from communication of the order, not its mere passage. This clarifies refund timing for importers and exporters after provisional assessments, preventing premature time-bar rejections.

The Tribunal ruled that the absence of original invoices does not preclude a Cenvat Credit refund if the duty has been paid and the capital goods receipt is established, prioritising substantive eligibility over technical documentation. This protects taxpayers who can substantiate purchases despite missing original paperwork.

CESTAT Hyderabad rules that Service Tax paid under reverse charge must be governed by Rule 9(1)(e) of Cenvat Credit Rules, not Rule 9(1)(bb). Sets aside denial of Rs. 2.42 crore refund, directing recomputation of refund claims for exporters. Impacts businesses claiming Cenvat credit on reverse charge payments prior to 2011.

CESTAT Chennai rules that when a contract explicitly prohibits passing on the Oil Industry Development Cess to the buyer, and documentary evidence confirms non-passing of incidence, the refund claim cannot be denied on grounds of unjust enrichment. This sets a critical precedent for oil and energy producers seeking refunds on excess cess paid due to valuation errors, reinforcing contractual intent over presumptive pass-on.

CESTAT Ahmedabad rules that voluntary reversal of Cenvat Credit under audit objection does not bar refund claims if a subsequent circular validates the credit. The tribunal held that adjudication cannot exceed the scope of the show cause notice, ensuring natural justice for taxpayers.

CESTAT Ahmedabad rules that redemption fines paid under coercive departmental directions do not qualify as voluntary payments under SVLDRS 2019, entitling assessees to refunds. The decision protects taxpayers from unlawful administrative demands and reinforces the scheme’s intent to provide finality without duress.