2017 (7) TMI 935 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - time limitation - Section 11B of the Central Excise Act 1944 - Held that - the appellant had paid the duty twice once by cenvat account and secondly by way of cash and by this appeal the appellant only wants to take recredit of the amount of duty paid twice amounting to Rs. 2, 52, 605/- which has wrongly been denied by the Department - the appellant is entitled to take re-credit of the amount of Rs. 2, 52, 605/- and the question of limitation does not arise as retaking of credit is simple and book adjustment - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against modified order of Commissioner (Appeals) regarding payment of excise duty and cenvat credit utilization
- Dispute over the payment of duty amount and interest by the appellant
- Violation of Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules by utilizing cenvat credit
- Imposition of penalty and reduction by Commissioner
- Request for recredit of duty amount paid twice by the appellant
- Interpretation of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act regarding refund claim limitation

Analysis:
The appeal was directed against an order modifying the Assistant Commissioner's decision on the payment of excise duty by the appellant. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing excisable goods, had a duty liability of &8377; 4,18,456 for goods cleared in November 2008. Despite the due date being 05.12.2008, the appellant only paid &8377; 68,140 initially, leading to a default of &8377; 3,50,316. Subsequently, the appellant paid the defaulted duty amount along with interest. However, a further amount was paid using cenvat credit, violating Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules. The Commissioner reduced the penalty to &8377; 5,000 in the Order-in-Appeal dated 25.02.2011.

The appellant sought permission to recredit the amount paid twice, amounting to &8377; 2,52,605, as it was paid both through cenvat account and in cash. The appellant argued that the Department should allow the recredit without a formal refund claim, as the retention of the amount was unauthorized. The Tribunal noted that the appellant was entitled to the recredit as the duty was paid twice, and the Department's denial was incorrect. The Tribunal emphasized that the recredit was a simple book adjustment, not subject to limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing that the appellant could take recredit of the duty amount paid twice. The decision was based on the acknowledgment of the double payment and the straightforward nature of the recredit process. The Tribunal's ruling highlighted the appellant's entitlement to correct the erroneous payment without being bound by the limitation period for refund claims under the Central Excise Act.