2002 (4) TMI 683 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim rejection based on limitation under Section 11B of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Bangalore involved a dispute regarding a refund claim rejected by the Assistant Commissioner on the grounds of being time-barred as per Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Commissioner of Customs and C. Excise (Appeals), Bangalore had earlier ruled in favor of the party, M/s. Sudhir Papers (P) Ltd., stating that the refund claim was within the time limit. The issue arose when the party sought a refund of Cess paid in RG 23A pt. II after the expiry of six months from the relevant date, as prescribed by Section 11B. The party had initially paid the Cess for the years 1994-95 and 1995-96, which was later debited from their PLA account, leading to the refund claim filed after the stipulated time limit.

The Revenue, represented by Shri Narasimha Murthy, argued that the refund claim exceeded the limitation period set by Section 11B, justifying the rejection by the Assistant Commissioner. On the other hand, Shri Ramasubramanian, Counsel for the Respondents, contended that the initial payment through Modvat account was incorrect, leading to its recovery through PLA debits. He argued that there was a double payment of Cess, and the time limit should not apply to the second debit. He referenced a Supreme Court decision to support his argument that Section 11B does not apply to wrongly taken credits, emphasizing that the Commissioner (Appeals) had made a crucial finding that remained unchallenged by the Revenue.

Upon careful consideration of the submissions and records, the Appellate Tribunal found that the party's refund claim was indeed time-barred under Section 11B. The Tribunal rejected the argument that Section 11B did not apply to the case, emphasizing that it was the sole section governing refund claims. The Tribunal highlighted that the Revenue authorities were bound by statutory provisions, citing previous Supreme Court judgments to support this principle. It was emphasized that the Tribunal could not exceed the statutory provisions and that equity principles could not be the basis for granting relief. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was allowed, upholding the rejection of the refund claim based on the limitation imposed by Section 11B.

In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Bangalore clarified the application of Section 11B in refund claims, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory limitations and the binding nature of statutory provisions on Revenue authorities. The decision underscored the need for strict compliance with legal provisions in matters concerning refunds and highlighted the Tribunal's role in upholding statutory regulations without deviating into equitable considerations.