2004 (12) TMI 567 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim rejection based on time limit under Section 11B.
2. Applicability of Section 11B time limit in case of bank guarantee appropriation.
3. Interpretation of Section 11B in light of Supreme Court ruling.
4. Precedent set by Division Bench regarding bank guarantee and refund claims.

Analysis:

1. The appellant's refund claim of Rs. 6,30,676/- was rejected by the Dy. Commissioner, Central Excise, under O.I.O. dated 13-6-2002, citing the expiration of the six-month time limit under Section 11B from the date of the appellate authority's order setting aside the bank guarantee appropriation.

2. The appellant contended that the six-month time limit under Section 11B should not apply in their case. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the circumstances outlined in Section 11B for refund without limitation did not apply to the appellant's situation.

3. Citing the Supreme Court ruling in the case of M/s. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. v. Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, the Court emphasized that Section 11B applies when an assessee claims refund of excise duty paid to the authorities. The Court clarified that furnishing a bank guarantee does not equate to payment of excise duty, and therefore, the provisions of Section 11B do not apply in such cases.

4. The Division Bench of the Tribunal previously upheld the interpretation of the Supreme Court ruling in the case of M/s. Saheli Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Surat-I. Following this precedent, the Court concluded that the appellant, who had offered a bank guarantee as security, is entitled to the refund without being bound by the time limit specified under Section 11B.

In light of the above analysis and legal interpretations, the Court allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant and setting aside the rejection of the refund claim based on the time limit under Section 11B.