2005 (6) TMI 447 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Refund claim time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai arose from the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) upholding the rejection of a refund claim by the appellant on the grounds of being time-barred. The appellant, who had purchased goods from M/s. Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd., sought a refund of excise duty paid between 31-3-88 to 23-2-89, with the claim being made in July 1992. The crux of the issue was the interpretation of Section 11B, which mandates that a person bearing the incidence of duty must apply for a refund within six months from the date of purchase of goods. The appellant contended that prior to the 1991 amendment, only the person who had paid the excise duty could seek a refund, and it was only after the amendment that they became eligible claimants. This argument was put forth to justify the delay in filing the refund claim.

The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, acknowledged that the claim was indeed time-barred. The appellant's argument that the time limit should be calculated from the date of the first application made by M/s. Godrej, who initially paid the duty, was deemed unacceptable. The Tribunal emphasized the clarity of the provisions of Section 11B in this regard. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's appeal lacked merit, given the explicit requirements of the law concerning the timeline for filing refund claims under Section 11B. Consequently, the appeal was rejected by the Tribunal, affirming the decision of the lower authorities regarding the time-barred refund claim.