2001 (2) TMI 190 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim rejection as time-bar under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi involved a refund claim rejection as time-bar under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The appellants, engaged in the manufacture of Inorganic Chemicals, availed MODVAT credit for duty paid on inputs. A show cause notice was issued for recovery of an amount, which the appellants entered in their records and debited in their account. A penalty was imposed but later set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals). Subsequently, a refund claim was filed for duty paid earlier, which was denied as time-barred. The adjudicating authority rejected the claim, citing the six-month limitation under Section 11B. The appellants argued that since duty was paid twice, the limitation did not apply, relying on a Tribunal decision. The Revenue contended that the limitation period must be adhered to, as per Supreme Court rulings.

The learned Counsel for the appellants argued that the limitation under Section 11B should not apply as duty was paid twice, citing a Tribunal decision. On the other hand, the SDR representing the Revenue emphasized the importance of adhering to the statutory limitation period, supported by Supreme Court precedents. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal noted that the refund claim was indeed filed beyond the statutory limitation period. While the appellants relied on a Tribunal decision regarding excess duty payment, the Tribunal distinguished the present case as involving double duty payment. Referring to a Supreme Court judgment, the Tribunal highlighted the binding nature of statutory provisions on Revenue authorities. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal and rejected it.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi upheld the rejection of the refund claim as time-bar under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal distinguished the case from precedents involving excess duty payment, emphasizing the statutory obligations of Revenue authorities. The appeal was dismissed based on the finding that the refund claim was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period, and the Tribunal's decision was in line with the legal provisions and judicial precedents cited during the proceedings.