2003 (1) TMI 334 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
Whether refund of Central Excise duty is available to the appellant.

Analysis:

The appeal filed by M/s. Indian Oil Corporation raised the issue of whether they were entitled to a refund of Central Excise duty. The appellant had cleared a consignment of High-Speed Diesel (HSD) under bond, inadvertently paying duty on the goods. They later realized the mistake and took a credit of the duty amount in their Personal Ledger Account (PLA). The appellant filed a refund claim for the duty amount, which was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner as being time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection, stating that the appellant failed to provide documentary evidence of the goods being cleared by mistake and that the claim was time-barred. The appellant argued that the debit made in the PLA at the time of clearance was a clerical error and could be corrected without involving the Department.

The respondent, represented by the Senior Departmental Representative, countered the appellant's arguments by stating that the duty was paid on 9-8-98, and as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, any refund claim must be made within six months from the relevant date. The respondent argued that the refund claim filed on 7-7-99 was beyond the six-month limit and, therefore, time-barred. The respondent also highlighted that there was no provision in the Act or Rules for the appellant to take credit in their PLA without following the prescribed procedure for refund claims.

The Tribunal considered both sides' submissions and found that the appellant had indeed paid Central Excise duty on goods that were cleared under bond, making the duty payment unnecessary. The Tribunal agreed with the respondent that the only recourse for the appellant was to file a refund claim within six months of duty payment, which they failed to do. As the refund claim was time-barred under Section 11B, the Tribunal rejected the appeal. Additionally, the Tribunal concurred with the respondent that if a refund claim is rejected, any credit wrongly taken by the appellant in their PLA must be debited without further action. Therefore, the appeal was found to have no merit and was rejected.