2021 (9) TMI 493 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of amount paid during persuasion of the department - claim rejected holding that same is beyond prescribed limit - section 11B of Central Excise Act 1944 - HELD THAT - As it is clear from the order of Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) dated 19.01.2010 that it is not duty, therefore, the provisions of Section 11B of the Act are not applicable to the facts of the case to allege time limit prescribed under Section 11B of the Act is applicable to the facts of this case. The same view was taken by the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), BANGALORE VERSUS KVR CONSTRUCTION 2012 (7) TMI 22 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT as well as the Hon ble Apex Court in UNION OF INDIA VERSUS ITC LIMITED 1993 (7) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT . The refund claim filed by the appellant is not barred by limitation - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against rejection of refund claim as time-barred.

Analysis:
The appellant, a manufacturer of DG sets, appealed against the rejection of their refund claim as time-barred. The appellant collected a certain amount for the transportation of DG sets from buyers but paid less to transporters. The proceedings alleged duty payment on transportation charges exceeding actual payments. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) held that the profit earned on transportation charges did not constitute duty. Subsequently, the appellant filed a refund claim, which was rejected citing Section 11B of the Central Excise Act 1944. The appellant contended that Section 11B did not apply as the amount was not duty, citing relevant case laws. The Ld. AR argued that the refund claim was time-barred under Section 11B. The core issue was whether the amount in the refund claim was duty or a deposit.

The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had previously determined that the profit earned on transportation charges was not excise duty. Therefore, the provisions of Section 11B were deemed inapplicable to the case. The Tribunal concurred with this view, citing case laws supporting the appellant's position. The Tribunal differentiated the case cited by the Ld. AR, which dealt with duty refunds, not applicable to the present scenario. Consequently, the refund claim was considered not time-barred, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, determining that the refund claim was not time-barred as the amount in question did not constitute excise duty. The decision was based on the interpretation of relevant legal provisions and case laws, ultimately allowing the appeal and providing relief to the appellant.