2005 (7) TMI 467 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim rejection as time-barred.

Analysis:
The appeal was directed against the Order-in-Appeal affirming the rejection of the refund claim as time-barred. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing electrical transformers, filed a refund claim for excise duty after the price revision by the buyer, Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board (MPEB). The duty on the transformers was paid by the appellants during July to September 1994, and the refund claim was filed in June 1995, beyond the six-month limitation period under Section 11B of the Act. The appellants argued that the relevant date for the refund claim should be the date of price revision by MPEB, not the date of duty payment. However, the Tribunal held this plea as misconceived. The appellants did not claim provisional assessment at the time of supply, paid duty without protest, and the subsequent price reduction by the buyer did not entitle them to claim back the duty. The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claim, stating that the relevant time for filing the claim was the date of duty payment, not the date of price revision by the buyer. Consequently, the impugned Order-in-Appeal was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.

This judgment highlights the importance of adhering to the statutory limitation period for refund claims under Section 11B of the Act. It emphasizes that the relevant date for claiming a refund is the date of duty payment, not the date of any subsequent price revision by the buyer. The Tribunal emphasized that failure to claim provisional assessment or protest at the time of supply, coupled with duty payment at the prescribed rate, does not entitle the appellant to claim a refund based on a later price revision by the buyer. The decision underscores the need for timely and accurate compliance with refund claim procedures to avoid rejection on grounds of being time-barred.