2004 (11) TMI 422 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the refund of Central Excise Duty claimed by a company is time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.

Analysis:
The appeals filed by the Revenue questioned whether the refund of Central Excise Duty claimed by a company, M/s. Shri Jagdamba Polymers Ltd., is within the time limit specified in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The Revenue argued that the refund claims were time-barred as they exceeded the six-month period under Section 11B. They contended that customers cannot benefit from a protest filed by the manufacturer, citing a Supreme Court ruling in a similar case.

On the contrary, the company's advocate referred to another Supreme Court decision, stating that if duty is paid under protest by the manufacturer, customers can also avail of the benefit, and the time limit in Section 11B does not apply. The advocate highlighted inconsistencies between various Supreme Court judgments on this matter, urging that the benefit of the manufacturer's protest should extend to customers, making the time limit inapplicable.

The Tribunal examined both arguments and referred to Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, which mandates refund claims to be made within six months from the relevant date, with an exception for duty paid under protest. The Tribunal rejected the company's argument, citing a Supreme Court ruling that differentiated between a manufacturer's and a buyer's right to claim a refund. The Supreme Court held that a buyer cannot claim a refund based on the manufacturer's protest payment without complying with Section 11B. The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's decision, ruled that the refund claims exceeded the time limit specified in Section 11B, thereby allowing the appeals filed by the Revenue.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act and the Supreme Court's rulings regarding the rights of manufacturers and buyers in claiming refunds of excise duty. The judgment clarified that customers cannot claim refunds based on a manufacturer's protest payment without adhering to the time limit specified in the Act.