2014 (7) TMI 439 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of Refund claim - due date of filing of claim in case of buyer of goods - Classification of goods held in favour of assessee by Supreme Court 1995 (3) TMI 89 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - Revenue denied refund claim of duty paid as barred by limitation - Held that - Section 11B dealt with claim for refund of duty. It did not deal with making of refund. Therefore, Section 11B(3) stated that no refund shall be made except in terms of Section 11B(2). Section 11B(2)(e) conferred a right on the buyer to claim refund in cases where he proved that he had not passed on the duty to any other person - purchaser is bound to file his claim for refund of duty paid under protest by the manufacturer, within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 11B, this period having to be reckoned with reference to the date of purchase of the goods. It may be noted that the law differentiates the manufacturer and the purchaser for purposes of refund of duty. - Following decisions of M/s. Western Coal Fields Ltd. 2005 (8) TMI 7 - CESTAT - Chennai - Decided against Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.

Analysis:
The appellant purchased duty paid Conveyor Belts from M/s. Fenner India Ltd. The manufacturer, M/s. Fenner India Ltd., faced a classification dispute that was resolved in their favor by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The manufacturer paid duty under protest. Subsequently, the appellant, as the purchaser, filed a refund claim for Rs. 23,14,715/- for the period Jan. '92 to Mar. '92. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim citing limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order.

The appellant's counsel pointed out that a similar issue had been decided against the assessee by the Tribunal in a previous case involving M/s. Western Coal Fields Ltd. The appellant requested to keep the present appeal pending until the Supreme Court's decision on the matter. However, the Tribunal noted that there was no stay order by the higher appellate court and proceeded to refer to the decision in the case of M/s. Western Coal Fields Ltd., where the issue was decided against the assessee.

The Tribunal highlighted the applicability of Section 11B in refund claims, emphasizing that the purchaser is bound to file a claim within the prescribed limitation period, based on the date of purchase of the goods. The Tribunal referenced the apex Court's ruling in Commissioner of Central Excise Vs Allied Photographics India Ltd., supporting the time-barred nature of the refund claims. Consequently, the Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and rejected the appellant's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the rejection of the appellant's refund claim based on the limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, in line with previous decisions and the apex Court's rulings. The appeal was dismissed accordingly.