2003 (1) TMI 407 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Availability of refund of Central Excise duty to M/s. Indian Oil Corporation.

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 High-Speed Diesel (HSD) under bond but inadvertently paid duty on the goods. The appellant later realized the mistake and took a credit of the duty amount in their Personal Ledger Account (PLA). They filed a refund claim after being advised by the Assistant Commissioner to do so. However, the refund claim was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner on the grounds of being time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, stating that the appellant failed to provide documentary evidence that the goods had been cleared on payment of duty by mistake. The appellant argued that the duty payment was a clerical error and could be corrected without involving the Department. The appellant's contention was that they were entitled to take credit in their PLA under Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

The Respondent, represented by the learned SDR, argued that the appellant had cleared the goods on payment of duty, and the refund claim was filed beyond the statutory time limit of 6 months from the relevant date of duty payment. The Respondent contended that there was no provision in the Central Excise Act or Rules for the appellant to take credit in their PLA on their own. The Assistant Commissioner had advised the appellant to file a refund claim, and the absence of evidence showing discussions with the authorities was highlighted. The Respondent emphasized that once a refund claim is rejected, any wrongly taken credit in the PLA must be debited without the need for a show cause notice under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act.

Upon considering the arguments, the Tribunal found that the appellant had indeed paid Central Excise duty on goods that were cleared under bond, making the duty payment unnecessary. The Tribunal noted that the only recourse available to the appellant under Section 11B was to file a refund claim within 6 months from the date of duty payment. As the refund claim was filed after the statutory time limit, it was deemed time-barred. The Tribunal agreed with the Respondent's position that there was no provision allowing the appellant to take credit in their PLA other than through a refund claim. It was also held that if a refund claim is rejected, any wrongly taken credit in the PLA must be debited by the appellant. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal and rejected it.