2004 (4) TMI 157 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim rejection as time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the rejection of a refund claim by M/s. Lakshmi Machine Works, where the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) upheld the decision of the lower adjudicating authority based on Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant argued that they paid the Central Excise duty as per instructions received in March 1995 and submitted proof of export in July 1995, with the refund claim filed in March 1996, within 6 months of receiving the proof of export. The appellant cited previous judgments to support their claim that the delay in submitting proof of export should not lead to duty demand, emphasizing that the duty was paid promptly. The Revenue contended that the time limit for refund starts from the duty payment date, not the proof of export submission date, and questioned the delay in receiving the proof of export. The Revenue distinguished previous judgments cited by the appellant, highlighting the difference in scenarios where duty payment was pending versus already made.

The Tribunal considered the submissions and upheld the Revenue's argument that the refund claim period starts from the duty payment date, as per Section 11B of the Act. The Tribunal found the cited judgments of M.R.F. Ltd. and Unicure Remedies (P) Ltd. not directly applicable to the present case, as the duty was paid promptly in this instance. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the appeal and upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the time-barred refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.