2016 (6) TMI 571 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of excise duty paid in excess - period of limitation - Held that - Duty was paid in December 2006 and March 2007 but the goods were removed in March 2008 and the refund application was filed on 5.1.2010 which means that the refund application in the present case has been filed after more than three years which is beyond the period of limitation as per Section 11B enumerated above. It has been held in the case of Miles India Ltd Vs ACC 1984 (4) TMI 63 - SUPREME COURT OF I that the provisions of time limit are mandatory and the excise/customs authorities cannot grant refund which is filed beyond the due date. A Statutory Authority cannot traverse beyond the confines of law and cannot grant relief by by-passing the bar of limitation. The refund claim filed after the expiry of period of limitation is not maintainable and this statutory time limit prescribed under Section 11B is not questionable by any Authority. Therefore in view of the clear-cut position of law, the refund claim filed by the appellant is beyond the period of limitation. Further the appellant has also failed to establish that the said burden of duty has not been passed on to its buyer. Simply producing a copy of the ledger would in my opinion will not be sufficient to discharge the onus on the appellant. The learned Commissioner(Appeals) has rightly held that the appellant has not been able to prove that the disputed duty amount has not been passed on to its buyers - Decided against assessee

Summary

Issues:
- Refund of excise duty paid in excess
- Time limitation for claiming refund
- Principle of unjust enrichment

Refund of excise duty paid in excess:
The appellant, a Public Sector Undertaking, sought a refund of excise duty paid in excess on certain equipment due to a reduction in duty rates post-payment. The appellant claimed that the excess payment amounted to ?17,02,400. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claim, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the present appeal. The appellant argued that the rejection based on time limitation was incorrect and cited the Supreme Court's ruling that recovery without legal authority is unconstitutional. The appellant contended that the company had not passed on the duty burden to buyers, supported by ledger extracts. The respondent, however, argued that the claim was time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, as the refund application was filed after the prescribed one-year period.

Time limitation for claiming refund:
The Tribunal noted that the duty was paid in December 2006 and March 2007, while the goods were removed in March 2008, and the refund application was filed on 5.1.2010, exceeding the statutory one-year limit under Section 11B. Citing relevant case law, the Tribunal emphasized the mandatory nature of time limits for refund claims, stating that authorities cannot grant refunds filed beyond the due date. The Tribunal referred to decisions such as Miles India Ltd Vs ACC and CCE VS Cooperative Sugars Ltd to support the position that statutory time limits are non-negotiable. Additionally, the Tribunal highlighted cases cited by the respondent, reinforcing that refund claims beyond the limitation period are not maintainable.

Principle of unjust enrichment:
The appellant's argument that the duty burden had not been passed on to buyers was deemed insufficient by the Tribunal. Merely producing a ledger copy was considered inadequate to prove non-passing of the duty burden. The Tribunal concurred with the Commissioner (Appeals) that the appellant had not satisfactorily demonstrated that the disputed duty amount had not been transferred to buyers. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the grounds of exceeding the time limit for refund claims and the failure to establish non-passing of the duty burden to buyers.