Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (2) TMI 933 - AT - Central ExciseRejection of refund claim of double payment of duty - limitation bar - CENVAT credit reversal from the cenvat account - Held that - the decision in the case of Precision Fasterns Ltd Vs CCE 2014 (12) TMI 655 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT followed where it was held that the words without utilising cenvat credit in Sub Rule 3(A) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rule 2002 shall be rendered invalid. So the appellant rightly reversed cenvat credit during the relevant period from Cenvat account. The Tribunal in the case of Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai 2013 (5) TMI 171 - CESTAT MUMBAI on an identical situation allowed the refund even refund application was filed beyond the period of 6 months. The appellant paid the amount in March 2009 in cash as pre-deposit is liable to be refunded. Refund of double payment of duty should not to be rejected - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Rejection of refund claim of Rs. 1,57,879 due to default in duty payment under Rule 8(3) of Central Excise Rules 2002. 2. Applicability of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 to the case. 3. Interpretation of Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules 2002 regarding utilization of Cenvat credit. Analysis: 1. The appellant's appeal was against the rejection of a refund claim of Rs. 1,57,879 for defaulting in monthly duty payments under Rule 8(3) of Central Excise Rules 2002. The appellant paid the amount twice, once from Cenvat account and later from PLA. The Revenue argued that the refund claim was time-barred as the credit was reversed in 2007, and the claim was made in 2009. However, citing a precedent, the Tribunal allowed the refund even though the application was filed beyond the six-month period. 2. The Tribunal held that the excess duty paid, which was not required, cannot be considered as duty. Referring to a previous decision, it was established that erroneous excess payments not required to be made are eligible for a refund, and Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 does not apply in such cases. Therefore, the delay in filing the refund claim should not be a reason for denial based on the inapplicability of the limitation bar to the case. 3. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had paid the duty amount twice and correctly reversed the Cenvat credit during the relevant period, as per the interpretation of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules 2002. Following a decision by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, it was determined that the words "without utilizing Cenvat credit" in Rule 8(3A) are invalid. As the appellant had paid the duty amount in cash in March 2009, the Tribunal concluded that the double payment of duty should be refunded, emphasizing that it was a clear case deserving a refund. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal by the appellant was allowed.
|