2017 (11) TMI 25 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of excess amount paid - denial on the ground of time limitation - Held that - the facts are not much in dispute and the dates as stated by the learned DR on filing of the refund claims for the relevant period in question was definitely beyond the period of limitation of one year from the date of payment of duty - The provisions of section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 are very clear that any refund application arising for any reason, the relevant date would be the date of payment of such an amount - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues: Refund of excess amount paid, limitation period for filing refund claims, mistake of law defense, applicability of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944, judicial precedents on refund claims.

Refund of Excess Amount Paid:
The appeals were filed against the rejection of refund claims by lower authorities due to being hit by limitation. The appellant had mistakenly debited/paid an amount equal to 10% of the value of goods cleared for export under the impression that the goods were exempted. Upon realizing the error, they applied for a refund of the excess amount paid.

Limitation Period for Filing Refund Claims:
The Departmental Representative argued that the refund claims were filed belatedly, beyond the limitation period. The claims for amounts debited in April 2007 to Sept. 2008 were filed on 25.04.2013, and for amounts paid in April 2009 to March 2010, claims were filed on 12.10.2005. It was contended that such delays could not be considered inadvertent mistakes, given the appellant's awareness of Central Excise laws and procedures.

Mistake of Law Defense and Applicability of Section 11B:
The appellant's representative relied on judicial precedents to argue that when an amount is paid in excess and not payable, Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, is not applicable. However, the Tribunal held that the debits made under a mistake of law could not be accepted, as the provisions of Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit 2004 were invoked, considering the goods cleared for export as exempted.

Judicial Precedents on Refund Claims:
The Tribunal referred to a decision in a similar case where the Tribunal ruled in favor of the revenue. Additionally, it noted that a High Court judgment relied upon by the appellant's representative had been reversed in a subsequent decision. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the impugned orders, stating they were correct and legal, and rejected the appeals.

The Tribunal, after considering the arguments presented, found that the refund claims were filed beyond the limitation period specified under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Despite the appellant's assertion of a mistake of law defense, the Tribunal held that the debits made were not under a genuine mistake and rejected the plea. Citing judicial precedents and a previous Tribunal decision, the Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' rejection of the refund claims, concluding that the impugned orders did not warrant any interference. Thus, the appeals were rejected, and the impugned orders were upheld.