2008 (11) TMI 560 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim for differential duty paid on NGL/ARN procured at concessional rate.
2. Duty demand on NGL/ARN consumed for power generation.
3. Appropriation of confirmed amount and limitation for balance claim.

Analysis:
1. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing fertilizers, submitted a refund claim for the duty paid on NGL/ARN procured at a concessional rate. The claim was for the period from 15-11-95 to 28-2-2001. Show cause notices were issued regarding the use of NGL/ARN for power generation instead of in the manufacturing process. The Deputy Commissioner dropped the notices for steam production but confirmed duty demand for power generation. The original adjudicating authority found part of the claim confirmed and appropriated, stating the balance was paid voluntarily and thus hit by limitation. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the confirmed amount had attained finality and the balance claim was rejected due to limitation, citing a Supreme Court judgment.

2. The appellant argued that they were eligible for inputs under Chapter X procedure, making the limitation under Section 11A inapplicable. They relied on a Tribunal decision affirmed by the Supreme Court. The appellant contended that since the time limit does not apply for demands under Section 11A, it should not apply to refunds either. However, the Tribunal found that in this case, goods were received with duty payment, not under Chapter X procedure. The refund did not arise from following Chapter X procedure but from choosing to pay duty instead of availing duty-free goods. Therefore, the refund claim was not limited by time constraints, and the appellant's case laws were deemed irrelevant. Consequently, the appeal was rejected.

Judgment:
The Tribunal rejected the appeal, emphasizing that the refund claim was not limited by time constraints as it did not arise from following Chapter X procedure. The appellant's argument regarding eligibility for inputs under Chapter X procedure was dismissed, and the case laws cited were deemed irrelevant.