2021 (12) TMI 1302 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim of excise duty - rejection on the ground of time limitation as the same was filed after stipulated time period of one year from the relevant date - goods were eligible for exemption Notification No. 108/95-CE dated 28.08.1995 - HELD THAT - The stand of the appellant is that the duty which was paid not actually payable in terms of N/N. 108/95-CE therefore the amount paid is not duty but deposit accordingly the time limit as provided under Section 11B would not apply. There is no dispute that at the time of clearance of the goods the appellant have paid the excise duty subsequently they realize that duty was not payable in terms of N/N. 108/05-CE however the nature of duty so paid would not change it is the duty only which was paid by the appellant and when it is so then the limitation provided under Section 11B would clearly apply. As the fact reveals that the refund claim was filed beyond one year from the relevant date the same is time bar. This Tribunal being creature under the statute is governed by the same statute wherein statutory time limit has been provided under Section 11(B) therefore the statutory time limit provided by the act cannot be ignored. Their Lordships in the various High Courts have inherent power to relax the time limit but this Tribunal has no power to do the same - the refund being clearly time bar was rightly rejected by the lower authorities. Appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved: Whether the appellant's refund claim of excise duty paid on goods eligible for exemption under Notification No. 108/95-CE dated 28.08.1995 is time-barred or not.

Analysis:
1. The appellant paid duty under an invoice dated 30.06.2016, realizing later that the goods were exempt under Notification No. 108/95-CE, filed a refund claim on 18.09.2017. The department claimed the refund was time-barred under Section 11B for being filed after one year from the relevant date.

2. Despite multiple opportunities, no one appeared for the appellant. The appeal was taken up for disposal.

3. The Authorized Representative for the Revenue reiterated the impugned order's findings and submitted a compilation of notifications and case law.

4. The appellant argued that the duty paid was not actually payable under Notification 108/95-CE, considering it a deposit, hence Section 11B's time limit would not apply. They cited judgments of High Courts to support their stance.

5. The Member (Judicial) found that although the duty paid was later deemed unnecessary under the notification, it was still considered duty paid. Thus, the time limit under Section 11B applied, and since the refund claim was filed beyond one year, it was time-barred.

6. The Tribunal, as a statutory body, is bound by the statutory time limit under Section 11(B) and cannot overlook it, unlike High Courts. While High Courts can relax time limits, the Tribunal cannot. Therefore, the time-barred refund claim was rightly rejected by lower authorities, and the impugned order was upheld, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.