2016 (9) TMI 1017 - AT - Central Excise

Period of limitation - Refund claim - duty paid on discounts which were passed subsequent to the clearance of the goods from the depots - appellant contended that the data relating to the discounts for calculating refund claim could be available only after its sale from the depots, therefore, the time of sale from the depots, be considered as relevant date for the purpose of computing the period of limitation - Held that - it is clear that the payment of duty should be the basis for computing the period of limitation prescribed under Sec.11B of CEA, 1944 for claiming refund of duty and not the time sale of the goods from the depots as argued by the Department. The provision should be read as it is, no addition or subtraction is permitted in understanding its meaning. - Decided against the appellant

Summary

Issues: Refund claims rejected on the ground of limitation - Relevant date for computing the period of limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act 1944.

Analysis:
The appeals were filed against the orders passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs (Appeals) Vadodara-I rejecting refund claims for duty paid on discounts passed after goods clearance from depots. The appellant argued that the relevant date for computing the limitation period should be the time of sale from depots, as data on discounts for refund claims was available only post-sale. On the other hand, the Revenue contended that the date of duty payment should be considered the relevant date in the absence of provisional assessment. The Tribunal analyzed Section 11B of the Central Excise Act 1944, defining the "relevant date" for refund claims. It concluded that the payment of duty should be the basis for computing the limitation period, not the sale time from depots. The Tribunal emphasized literal interpretation of tax statutes, citing the principle that if a person falls within the statute's language, they must be taxed, regardless of hardship. Equitable construction is not permissible in taxing statutes, and strict interpretation is required. The Tribunal upheld the orders rejecting the refund claims, dismissing the appeals as devoid of merit.

In conclusion, the Tribunal determined that the relevant date for refund claims under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act 1944 is the payment of duty, not the sale time from depots. The decision was based on a literal interpretation of tax statutes, emphasizing adherence to statutory language without adding or subtracting from its meaning. The Tribunal cited legal principles supporting strict construction of tax statutes and upheld the rejection of refund claims, dismissing the appeals.