2005 (9) TMI 152 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Refund claim for excess amount debited in CENVAT account, time bar under Section 11B.

Refund Claim Issue: The appellants mistakenly debited an excess amount in their PLA/CENVAT account for March 2001 and sought permission to credit it back. The department advised filing a refund claim, which was rejected as time-barred. The appellants argued the excess amount was not duty and the department misled them into filing the claim. The tribunal found the amount paid in error was not duty as it was not in accordance with Rule 173G, thus Section 11B did not apply. The tribunal considered the initial letter to the department as a refund claim and concluded the amount paid should be treated as a deposit, not duty, allowing the appeal.

Time Bar Issue: The department contended that the refund claim, filed after a year, was time-barred as the excess amount paid should be considered duty. However, the tribunal disagreed, stating the amount paid in error was not duty and did not find mention in any invoices, thus should be treated as a deposit. The tribunal allowed the appeal, noting the denial of the refund claim for a clerical error was unjust, and granted consequential relief to the appellants.

Separate Judgement: The appeal was heard by Dr. S.L. Peeran and Shri T.K. Jayaraman, with the order pronounced by T.K. Jayaraman on September 1, 2005.