2001 (2) TMI 192 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim of Central Excise duty filed by the appellants.
2. Rejection of refund claim by Asstt. Commissioner based on limitation.
3. Appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) and reliance on previous CEGAT decision.
4. Additional ground raised by appellants based on a Larger Bench decision.
5. Dismissal of the appeal by the appellate authority.

Analysis:

1. The appellants, a manufacturing company, filed a refund claim of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 5,19,572.00 due to an excess payment made by the Railways. The dispute arose when the Railways deducted Rs. 32,42,129.50 from the payments to the appellants due to a mistake in applying the Price Variation Clause (PVC) in their contract. The appellants argued that their refund claim was timely filed from the date of the cause of action, as per the Contract Act and Limitation Act.

2. The Asstt. Commissioner rejected the refund claim citing Explanation 'C' of Section 11B, which considers the date of payment of duty as the relevant date for the claim of refund. The Commissioner held that the Central Excise Act mandates the filing of refund claims within six months from the date of payment of duty, dismissing the appellants' reliance on the Contract Act and Limitation Act for the limitation period.

3. The appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was unsuccessful, with the appellate authority upholding the original decision based on the statutory provisions of Section 11B. The authority referred to a previous CEGAT decision where a refund claim was rejected due to a mistake of law, emphasizing the limitations of statutory authorities to deviate from the prescribed provisions.

4. The appellants raised an additional ground based on a Larger Bench decision, requesting an adjournment for 15 days. However, the request was denied, and the appeal was decided based on the facts on record. The appellants argued for the inclusion of the date of communication of the deduction by Railways for computing the limitation period, but the authorities maintained that the Central Excise Act's provisions govern such matters.

5. The appellate authority rejected the appeal, emphasizing that the assessments were not requested to be provisional, and the presence of a PVC clause in the contract did not warrant deeming the assessments as provisional. The appeal was deemed meritless, and the orders of the lower authorities were upheld, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

This detailed analysis outlines the progression of the case, focusing on the refund claim, the rejection based on limitation, the appellate process, and the final decision based on statutory provisions and previous legal precedents.