2013 (5) TMI 171 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of excise duty paid denied - claim filed beyond the period of limitation - Held that - It is an admitted fact that the duty payable by the appellant has been paid. The excess duty paid was not required to be paid by the appellant. Therefore the same cannot be treated as duty. As held in Shankar Ramchandra Auctioneers (2010 (4) TMI 391 - CESTAT, MUMBAI) excess amount paid erroneously as duty which was not required to pay, there is no bar to return of such amounts. Therefore, the provisions of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 are not applicable. Relying on the said decision, it can be concluded that the provisions of Section 11B ibid are not applicable to the facts of this case therefore not filing the refund claim in time cannot be the reason for denying the claim as bar of limitation is not applicable to this case - in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Refund of excise duty denied due to filing beyond limitation period.

Analysis:
The appellant imported pigments, paid duty twice, and filed a refund claim after realizing the error. The claim was rejected as filed after six months. The Tribunal noted that the excess duty paid was not required and cannot be treated as duty. Citing a previous case, it held that there is no bar to return such amounts paid erroneously. Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was deemed inapplicable in this scenario. The Tribunal concluded that the limitation period does not apply in this case, allowing the appeal and granting consequential relief.