9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (4) TMI 625 - HC - Central ExciseNot liable to be pay the duty, they paid the duty and thereafter credited the duty paid, in their personal ledger accounts - file a refund application for the duty already paid - application for refund has been filed beyond the period of 6 months from the date of debit of the duty Held that - was not liable to pay any duty, therefore, the Tribunal could not reject their application for refund, as it would tantamount to unjust enrichment of the State.
Issues:
Claim for refund barred by limitation; Permissibility of re-credit in PLA; Duty refundable under Section 11B; Recovery without notice under Section 11A. Analysis: 1. The case involved a consignment cleared by Indian Oil Corporation to Jammu Depot without duty payment, but the duty was paid and later claimed for refund. The refund application was rejected as time-barred for being filed beyond six months from the duty debit. 2. The petitioner sought clarification on the limitation issue and other related questions, including the permissibility of re-credit in the Personal Ledger Account (PLA) and the duty refundable under Section 11B, along with the recovery process under Section 11A. 3. The court noted that the duty was paid erroneously by Indian Oil Corporation despite not being liable for it. Citing a previous case, the court emphasized that the State should not unjustly enrich itself, and hence, rejected the rejection of the refund application based on the limitation period. 4. The court held that since the petitioner was not liable to pay any duty, rejecting their refund application would result in unjust enrichment of the State. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the assessee on the limitation issue, rendering the other questions moot. 5. Ultimately, the court answered the first question in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue, leading to the conclusion that the other questions did not require further adjudication. The reference was thus answered in favor of the assessee based on the aforementioned reasoning.
|
