1994 (1) TMI 243 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 11B regarding the limitation period for claiming refund of excise duty.
2. Application of the second proviso to Section 11B(1) in cases where duty is paid under protest.
3. Determining whether the limitation period applies to refund claims filed by persons other than the manufacturer.
4. Examination of the word "borne" in relation to the payment of excise duty for refund claims.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute over the refund claim of excise duty filed by M/s. National Winders, Varanasi, against the order of the Collector (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals) held that the refund claim was time-barred under Section 11B due to being filed after six months from the relevant date.

2. The appellant argued that the limitation period should not apply as the duty was paid under protest by M/s. Vikas Engineering, and the burden of excess duty was not passed on to the appellant. The appellant contended that the second proviso to Section 11B(1) should apply to all cases where duty is paid under protest, irrespective of the claimant being a manufacturer or a consumer.

3. The Tribunal analyzed the language of Section 11B and the provisos, focusing on the term "borne by the buyer" in connection with the payment of excise duty. The Tribunal emphasized that the word "borne" was distinct from "paid," indicating that the refund claimant must show that they bore the burden of the duty and did not pass it on to another person. The Tribunal concluded that the second proviso to Section 11B(1) did not apply to the appellant's case.

4. The Tribunal further deliberated on whether the limitation period for claiming a refund applied to cases where the claimant was not the manufacturer. It clarified that the relevant date for counting the six-month period was the date of purchase for claimants other than the manufacturer. The Tribunal held that the limitation period would strictly apply to claimants other than the manufacturer, and the proviso regarding duty paid under protest did not exempt the appellant from the time limit.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the refund claim was filed well beyond the six-month limitation period from the date of purchase, rendering it time-barred. Consequently, the appeal was rejected based on the application of Section 11B and the interpretation of relevant provisions regarding the refund of excise duty.