2004 (1) TMI 206 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Application of limitation in a refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.

Analysis:
The issue in this case pertains to the application of limitation in a refund claim filed by the respondent. The refund claim was submitted for an amount of Rs. 4 lakhs paid via TR-6 challans dated 12-11-1997 and 19-11-1997. It was discovered that Rs. 2 lakhs claimed as paid by the claimant was actually paid by another unit, M/s. Dharam Inds. The claimant filed the refund claim on 21-1-1999, which was after the 6-month period from the date of duty payment, making it potentially time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.

The Assistant Commissioner (AC) rejected the refund claim, arguing that the payment was not considered a deposit for future payment. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal, stating that the refund application was filed within 6 months from the date of the adjudication order issued in favor of the claimant on 18-11-1998.

The Revenue's appeal contended that since the amount was not paid under protest, the 6-month limitation period should apply, rendering the claim time-barred.

Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal analyzed the application of the 6-month limitation period under Section 11B of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the payments made by the appellants were in the form of deposits, not specifically attributed to any particular goods for which duty was due. It was acknowledged that the payments were obtained by the authorities as deposits towards potential liabilities arising from investigations. As no duty liability was confirmed against any specific goods cleared by the appellants, the entire payment was deemed a "deposit." In such cases, where the payment is classified as a "revenue deposit," the provisions of Section 11B for claiming duty refunds do not apply. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Mafatlal Inds., emphasizing that even amounts deposited during provisional assessments before specific notifications are not governed by Section 11A or Section 11B.

Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal and rejected it, upholding the decision in favor of the claimant for the refund of the revenue deposit.