9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (2) TMI 1235 - AT - Central ExciseRefund claim - rejection on the ground of time limitation - Section 11B of CEA 1944 - Held that - the amount of duty was paid on 28.12.2012 as the Appellant could not produce the proof of export in compliance of the condition of N/N. 42/2001-CE(NT). Later even though the proof of export was submitted in April 2013 but the refund claim was filed on 14.4.2014 after one year from the date of payment of duty hence the refund is barred by limitation - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of payment made under pressure or as a deposit. 2. Applicability of limitation period under Section 11B of CEA, 1944 for refund claim. Analysis: 1. The case revolved around the interpretation of a payment made by the Appellant on 28.12.2012, totaling ?33,97,043, due to their failure to produce proof of export within six months as required by Notification No.42/2001-CE(NT). The Appellant claimed that the amount was paid while pursuing renewal of their UT-1 undertaking and should be treated as a deposit rather than duty. The Appellant argued that the payment was not made under pressure and should not be subject to the limitation period under Section 11B of CEA, 1944. However, the Revenue contended that the payment was a result of the Appellant's failure to comply with the export conditions, and even though proof of export was later submitted, the refund claim filed in April 2014 was beyond the one-year limitation period specified under Section 11B. The Revenue highlighted that there was no mention of the payment being made under protest in any correspondence. 2. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments from both sides and reviewing the records, upheld that the duty payment made in December 2012 was due to the Appellant's inability to provide proof of export as required by the notification. Despite submitting the proof of export in April 2013, the Appellant filed the refund claim on 14.4.2014, exceeding the one-year limitation period prescribed under Section 11B of CEA, 1944. The Tribunal referred to a judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in a similar case, where it was held that such delay in filing the refund claim renders it barred by limitation. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Appeal, affirming the decision to reject the refund claim based on the limitation period stipulated under Section 11B of CEA, 1944.
|
