2011 (4) TMI 836 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - Limitation - Held that - Clause (B)(f) of Explanation to Section 11B stipulates the relevant date will be the date of payment of duty. As per the facts of the case the amount was deposited to account credited vide TR-6 challan No.25/2002-03 dated 31.03.03 and TR-6 challan No.24/2002-03 dated 31.03.03 and TR-6 challan No.01/2004-05 dated 13.05.04, and the assessee filed the refund claim on 17.07.06 much after the expiry of one year - It may also be mentioned that the appellants opted for full exemption with effect from 09.07.04 as per provisions of Notification No.31/04-CE dated 09.07.04 - The view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the refund claim is inadmissible on account of time bar therefore is acceptable.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on time bar under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the rejection of a refund claim of Rs.4,966 by the original adjudicating authority. The claim was related to the unutilized balance of AED (T & TA) in the appellants' PLA under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The claim was made due to the levy of AED on finished goods, which was later abolished. The original adjudicating authority rejected the claim citing time bar.

The main contention of the appellant was that the amount in their PLA, not utilized for duty payment, should be considered as a deposit with no time limit for refund claim. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that the amounts credited in the PLA were based on deposits made through TR-6 challans clearly showing AED (T & TA) as the head of deposit. Therefore, the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 were applicable.

Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 specifies that any person claiming refund of excise duty must apply for refund within one year from the relevant date. The relevant date, as per Clause (B)(f) of Explanation to Section 11B, is the date of payment of duty. In this case, the refund claim was filed much after the expiry of one year from the dates of deposit mentioned in the TR-6 challans. Additionally, the appellants had opted for full exemption from a certain date as per a specific notification.

Considering the above, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the refund claim was time-barred and therefore inadmissible. Consequently, the appeal was rejected by the Tribunal.