2023 (2) TMI 1194 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of amount left unutilized in account current which is popularly know as Personal Ledger Account (PLA) - refund rejected to the appellant on the ground of limitation - HELD THAT - After hearing both the sides and after perusal of record and provisions of Central Excise Act, 1994, it is very clear that the amount deposited in PLA is an advance kept by the assesses with the exchequer and only when an amount is debited in PLA it is treated as payment of duty. The limitation discussed in the impugned order will be applicable for such quantum of debits which actually become duty. The amount which is not debited in the PLA is not duty and therefore, limitation does not apply to the same. The amount deposited in the PLA till such time it is not debited towards duties is property of the appellant. Therefore, the balance left over in the PLA is not covered by limitation. The original authority are directed to issue refund cheque to the appellant within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order - the impugned order set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved: Refund of unutilized amount in Personal Ledger Account (PLA) under Central Excise Act, 1994.

Analysis:
The issue in the present appeal revolves around the refund of an amount left unutilized in the Personal Ledger Account (PLA) of the appellant. The appellant had Rs. 46,968/- remaining in the PLA at the end of June 2017, which they were unable to utilize for Central Excise duty following the introduction of GST on 01.07.2017. Subsequently, the appellant applied for a refund of the unutilized amount on 20.11.2018, which was rejected on grounds of limitation.

Upon careful consideration of the arguments from both sides and a thorough examination of the records and provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1994, it was established that the amount deposited in the PLA represents an advance held by the assesses with the exchequer. It was clarified that only when an amount is debited in the PLA, it is considered as payment of duty. The limitation mentioned in the impugned order is applicable to the quantum of debits that actually constitute duty. Importantly, the amount remaining unutilized in the PLA does not fall under the purview of duty and is considered the property of the appellant until debited. Therefore, the balance left over in the PLA is not constrained by the limitation period. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the original authority was directed to issue a refund cheque to the appellant within four weeks from the date of the order.

In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the distinction between amounts debited in the PLA as duty and unutilized balances, emphasizing that the latter is not subject to the limitation period and is rightfully the property of the appellant until utilized for duty payments.