2006 (3) TMI 641 - AT - Central Excise

Refund - paid in excess of duty - period of limitation prescribed in terms of Section 11B - HELD THAT - On a careful consideration, we notice that the Revenue has taken a well sustained ground. For the reason that the Apex Court in the case of Asst. Commissioner of Customs v. Anam 1997 (1) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT had laid down in very clear terms that even in respect of claim for refund of an illegal levy , the statutory time limit prescribed in terms of Section 11B of CE Act and Section 27 of Customs Act is not extendable by any authority or court. The Apex Court has given this clarification in the light of the earlier judgments rendered in the case of Mafatlal Industries Limited v. UOI 1996 (12) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT . Thus, the refund application even in respect of illegal levy or amounts collected beyond the recoverable duty is required to be filed within the period of limitation prescribed u/s 11B of CE Act. Respectfully following the ratio of the Apex Court judgment, the order passed by the Commissioner (A) is set aside and the appeal is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the period of limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the CE Act applies to refund claims for amounts paid in excess of duty.
2. Whether excess duty paid can be adjusted against other payable duties.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appeal was against an Order-in-Appeal allowing a refund claim on the grounds that the period of limitation under Section 11B of the CE Act does not apply to payments made in excess of duty. The Commissioner relied on various rulings to support this contention, emphasizing that excess duty paid without authority of law must be refunded. However, the Revenue contended that even in cases of excess payments, the statutory time limit under Section 11B applies, citing the Apex Court judgment in Asst. Commissioner of Customs v. Anam Electrical Manufacturing Co. The Tribunal noted the Apex Court's clarification that the time limit under Section 11B is not extendable, even for claims related to "illegal levy." Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and allowed the appeal, emphasizing the need to file refund applications within the prescribed limitation period.

Issue 2:
The consultant representing the respondent argued that excess duty paid could be adjusted against other differential duties payable by the assessee. However, the Revenue opposed this adjustment, stating that reliance on a specific case for this argument was not sustainable. The Tribunal did not provide a detailed analysis of this issue in the judgment but focused on the applicability of the limitation period under Section 11B to refund claims for excess duty payments.