2020 (4) TMI 339 - AT - Central Excise

Refund in cash of excess excise duty paid - applicability of time limitation u/s 11B of CEA - appellant is before this Tribunal on the ground that the excess amount paid by them is not classifiable as tax or excise duty, rather it is revenue deposit - HELD THAT - The excess amount deposited by the appellant is not in the nature of excise duty, but revenue deposit. Further, the law in this case is settled that in case of revenue deposit the limitation prescribed under Section 11B is not applicable - adjudicating authority is directed to grant refund in cash in terms of Section 142(5) of CGST Act, 2017 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Excess excise duty payment by the appellant.
2. Appellant's request for refund of excess amount.
3. Applicability of limitation under Section 11B of the Act.
4. Classification of the excess amount as tax or revenue deposit.
5. Unjust enrichment against the appellant.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a manufacturer of bulk drugs, inadvertently paid excess excise duty of ?93,750 while supplying 'Ciprofloxacin Hydrocloride IP' to another manufacturer. The appellant realized the error and requested the buyer to reverse the excess duty and obtain a certificate of such reversal from the Department.

2. The buyer complied with the request, debiting the excess amount in their register and issuing a certificate of debit. Subsequently, the appellant sought permission to take credit of the excess amount, which was denied by the Assistant Commissioner on grounds of limitation. The appellant's appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was also rejected.

3. The appellant contended that the excess amount was not excise duty but a revenue deposit, citing precedents where similar situations were treated as revenue deposits and not subject to the limitation under Section 11B of the Act. The appellant argued that based on the facts and the certificate issued by the Range Superintendent, there was no unjust enrichment.

4. The Tribunal, after hearing arguments from the Authorized Representative for the Revenue, held that the excess amount deposited was indeed a revenue deposit and not excise duty. It was established that in cases of revenue deposits, the limitation under Section 11B does not apply. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and directed the adjudicating authority to grant a refund in cash under Section 142(5) of the CGST Act, 2017. The appellant was also entitled to interest on the refund as per the rules.

5. The judgment emphasized that the excess amount paid by the appellant was not classified as excise duty but as a revenue deposit, leading to the decision to allow the refund and reject the application of the limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the Act in this particular case.