2005 (4) TMI 437 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
Whether the refund claimed by M/s. U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. is time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.

Detailed Analysis:
The appeal revolves around the question of whether the refund claimed by M/s. U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. is affected by the time limit specified in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The appellant had cleared Levy Sugar between 1974-75 to 1979-80 based on prices fixed by the Government. Subsequently, following a Supreme Court judgment in a related case, the Government revised the prices, leading to the appellants paying varying amounts of duty. The Department issued a show cause notice for duty paid less due to upward price revisions, which was later dropped. The appellants then sought a refund of excess duty paid, but the claim was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) as time-barred.

The appellant argued that since they had paid short-paid duty due to price revisions, they were entitled to a refund of the excess duty paid. They highlighted that the Department had advised them to file a refund claim for the excess duty paid. However, the Department contended that the refund claim was time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal considered the submissions and noted that Section 11B specifies a time limit for claiming refunds of excess Central Excise duty. The duty in question was paid during 1974-75 to 1979-80, and the refund claim was filed in 2000, well beyond the statutory time limit.

The Tribunal emphasized that the mere advice from the Department to file a refund claim did not exempt the claim from the statutory provisions of Section 11B. It reiterated that any refund claim must adhere to the Act's provisions, including the specified time limits. As the refund claim in this case was filed long after the prescribed period under Section 11B, the Tribunal concluded that the claim was time-barred. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the rejection of the refund claim by the lower authorities.

In the final operative part of the order pronounced on 29-4-2005, the Tribunal officially rejected the appeal, upholding the decision that the refund claim was not valid due to being time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.