9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (11) TMI 452 - AT - Central ExciseDenial of refund of the PLA balance laying in their own account - Applicability of provisions of Section 11B to the refund of the balance amount lying in PLA account of the appellant - HELD THAT - The issue involved is applicability of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1994 for the refund of balance amount laying in the PLA account. The appellant have relied on the decision of Tribunal s own case SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD VERSUS C.C.E. S.T. -DAMAN 2022 (6) TMI 1176 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD wherein it was held that in case of PLA balance, it is not deposited as a duty but it is deposited as advance towards the duty. The PLA Amount takes the color of excise duty only when it is utilized for payment of duty on clearance of excisable goods. The unspent balance of PLA is only advance not duty therefore, Section 11B is not applicable. The appeal allowed.
Issues:
Applicability of Section 11B for refund of balance in PLA account. Analysis: The appellant filed an appeal against the denial of refund of the PLA balance in their own account. The appellant argued that Section 11B should not be applicable to the refund of the balance amount in their PLA account. They cited a Tribunal decision in their favor. The issue revolved around the applicability of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1994 to the refund of the balance amount in the PLA account. The Tribunal's previous decisions in similar cases were considered. The Tribunal observed that the unspent balance in the PLA account is considered an advance towards duty and not actual duty. Therefore, Section 11B, which applies to the refund of duty, was deemed not applicable in this scenario. The Tribunal referred to various precedents to support this interpretation. In a separate case, the Tribunal examined whether unutilized deposits in the PLA could be refunded and if such deposits were covered by Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The facts revealed that the appellants had an unutilized deposit in their account, which they sought to refund due to an exemption on duty. The Revenue argued that the refund process under Section 11B should be followed. However, the appellants relied on a circular by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, stating that unutilized amounts in the PLA were refundable. The Tribunal upheld the appellant's right to a refund based on previous decisions and judicial discipline. The Tribunal emphasized that the decision in the appellant's favor should prevail unless overturned by a higher court. The appellant was granted the refund of the PLA balance, and the limitation under Section 11B was deemed inapplicable. The Tribunal distinguished a decision in the case of Valson Polyester Ltd, stating that it did not consider earlier Tribunal decisions and the relevant board circular. Therefore, the Valson Polyester Ltd decision was not considered valid law. The Tribunal allowed the appeal based on the appellant's case and the established legal principles. The judgment reiterated that the appellant was entitled to a refund of the PLA balance, and Section 11B's limitation did not apply in this context. The decision highlighted the importance of following established legal precedents and relevant circulars in determining refund eligibility in cases involving unspent PLA balances.
|
