2015 (2) TMI 230 - HC - Central Excise

Refund claim - Whether the appellant is eligible for refund of the difference paid by the manufacturer through modvat credit - Held that - Here is a case where the appellant seeks refund of duty paid through Modvat. The final products, admittedly, are not dutiable and, therefore, the benefit of Modvat credit is also not available in respect of inputs as per the provisions of the Modvat at the relevant point of time. There is no provision in the MODVAT, which provides for refund of duty paid on inputs. In such circumstances, the authorities below had rejected the claim of the assessee, which action was confirmed by the Tribunal. This Court is in full agreement with the said view. In view of the concurrent finding of fact and law by the authorities below, we find no reason to differ. - Court finds no reason to take a view different from the one taken by the Tribunal. In any event, nothing survives for adjudication in the matter in view of the judgment in ARR Sales Agency (2014 (9) TMI 478 - Madras High Court) and, therefore, this appeal is liable to be dismissed - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility for refund of the difference paid by the manufacturer through modvat credit.

Analysis:
The High Court of Madras addressed the issue of eligibility for refund of the difference paid by the manufacturer through modvat credit in this judgment. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise had initially granted a partial refund of the duty paid through PLA by the manufacturer, but rejected the claim for a differential amount. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection order, stating that when the final products are not dutiable, the benefit of modvat credit is not available for inputs. The Tribunal confirmed this decision, emphasizing that there is no provision in MODVAT for the refund of duty paid on inputs. The High Court agreed with this view, noting that the authorities below correctly rejected the claim. The Court highlighted that the appellant's claim was also barred by limitation, as per the provisions of Section 11-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and cited a previous case where a similar claim for refund was dismissed on the ground of limitation.

The High Court further mentioned that the appellant had not denied the Department's objection regarding the limitation of the claim for refund. Referring to a previous case, the Court reiterated the importance of adhering to the statutory limitation period for claiming a refund under Section 11-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Court emphasized that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of the second proviso to Section 11-B (1) as the relevant date for the claim did not align with the statutory requirements. Consequently, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's decision, as the claim for refund was deemed barred by limitation. The Court concluded that there was no reason to deviate from the Tribunal's ruling and dismissed the appeal, ruling in favor of the Revenue and against the appellant/assessee. The Court also stated that no costs were to be awarded in this matter, as there was no merit warranting interference with the Tribunal's order.