2021 (3) TMI 678 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of unutilized balance of PLA accumulated - applicability of of section 11B of CEA - refund has been claimed on 30 July, 2018 for the cash balance of 30 June 2016 the same appears to be hit by limitation of period of one year - Appellant claimed non-applicability of section 11B as the amount sought to be refunded is deposit and not the duty - HELD THAT - The amount as was prayed to be refunded is admittedly an amount other than the duty or interest which is the subject matter of refund under Section 11 B. Section 11B should not have been made applicable upon the impugned refund. Simultaneously, it is observed that other than Section 11B, there is no provision under which the Department can refund the impugned amount or which permits the withdrawal of deposits as the one in the present case. Also, the impugned Show Cause Notice was issued objecting the application of refund to be barred by limitation. In the given circumstances, there was no other option with the Adjudicating Authority below to follow the mandate of Section 11B (1) of Central Excise Act, 1944. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Applicability of Section 11B for refund claim.
2. Limitation period for filing refund claim.
3. Nature of the amount claimed for refund.
4. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to consider principles of equity.

Analysis:

1. The appellant filed a refund claim for an unutilized balance of PLA accumulated till 30 June, 2017, which was rejected under Section 11B. The Department argued that Section 11B is the only provision for refund with a one-year limitation period. The Adjudicating Authority relied on the Supreme Court decision in Collector of Central Excise vs. M/s. Doaba Co-Operative Sugar Mills. The Tribunal observed that the impugned amount was not related to duty or interest under Section 11B, but no other provision allowed the refund. The Adjudicating Authority had to follow Section 11B (1) due to the limitation period.

2. The Tribunal noted that the refund application was objected to as time-barred. It emphasized the importance of adhering to the limitation period prescribed in the Central Excise Act and Rules. While acknowledging the appellant's entitlement to the refund amount of ?3,10,312 as a deposit, the Tribunal clarified its lack of jurisdiction to consider equity principles. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal but granted the appellant the liberty to pursue alternative civil or writ remedies.

3. The appellant contended that the impugned amount was a deposit, not duty, and sought a refund based on equity principles. The Tribunal recognized the amount as a deposit but maintained that it could not consider equity principles due to its quasi-judicial authority. Despite acknowledging the appellant's entitlement to the refund based on equity, the Tribunal upheld the order's validity based on the statutory limitations and lack of jurisdiction to apply equity principles.

4. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, citing the statutory limitations and the absence of alternative provisions for refund outside Section 11B. While recognizing the appellant's right to the refund amount as a deposit, the Tribunal reiterated its inability to consider equity principles. The appellant was advised to explore alternative civil or writ remedies for further recourse.