2003 (11) TMI 396 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Time-bar for filing refund claims.
2. Locus standi of the appellants to claim the refund.

Issue-wise Analysis:

1. Time-bar for Filing Refund Claims:
The appellants sought a refund of excise duty paid in excess during a specific period when they did not possess the necessary L6 license and CT-2 certificates required for concessional duty rates on naphtha. The lower authorities rejected the claim on the grounds of being time-barred, as the manufacturer did not lodge any protest at the point of payment of duty, and the claim was filed beyond the six-month limit. The appellants argued that their communications with the Departmental authorities implied a protest, even if they did not follow the formal procedure under Rule 233B, which pertains to manufacturers. However, the tribunal did not make a pronouncement on this point, focusing instead on the issue of locus standi.

2. Locus Standi of the Appellants:
The core issue was whether the appellants, who were not the manufacturers but the purchasers of naphtha, had the standing to claim a refund of excise duty. According to Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, any person claiming a refund must establish that the duty was paid by them and not passed on to another person. The tribunal emphasized that excise duty is an indirect tax borne by the ultimate consumer, but legally, it is paid by the manufacturer at the point of clearance from the factory. Therefore, only the manufacturer, in this case, the refinery, could claim a refund for excess duty paid. The appellants, as purchasers, paid a price inclusive of duty, not the duty itself.

The tribunal further clarified that the refund claim must be lodged with the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise having jurisdiction over the refinery, not the appellants' factory. The refinery would need to furnish details of the duty paid and claim any excess payment. The tribunal referenced similar situations, such as refund claims by taxi owners for saloon cars or merchant-exporters, where the refund process involves the manufacturer.

The tribunal concluded that the appellants lacked the locus standi to claim the refund, as they did not pay the duty directly to the government but paid a price inclusive of duty to the supplier. The claim was also filed before the wrong authority, as the Assistant Commissioner in charge of the appellants' factory could not determine the correctness of the duty paid by the refinery.

Conclusion:
The tribunal held that the refund claim was correctly rejected on the grounds of being filed before the wrong authority and the appellants lacking the locus standi to file the claim. Consequently, the tribunal did not examine the merits of the claim or the aspect of the time-bar further and rejected the appeal.