2010 (5) TMI 194 - HC - Central Excise

Error Apparent- the petitioner has claimed exemption from the excise duty on the Raw Naphtha used for generation of power and steam, which directly or indirectly is used for the production of final product. It also appears that for the period of June, 1996 to August, 1997 the applicant has not paid the duty of such Raw Naphtha, therefore, the Adjudicating Authority exercising the power under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, The Commissioner confirmed the demand. Being aggrieved by the said order the applicant filed appeals before Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, which were allowed and the matter was remanded to the concerned Adjudicating Authority. It further appears that for the period 8th February, 1998 to 11th May, 1998, the applicant had filed refund claim under Section 11B of the Act for Rs. 24,28,233.00, which was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner, on the ground that the application filed on 20-10-1999 was beyond the period of six months, therefore, barred by limitation. The Tribunal held that the claim of refund was barred by limitation. Thereafter, the applicant filed an application for rectification of mistake mainly on the ground that the Tribunal has not given any finding regarding the applicant s persistent plea that the refund claimed was consequential to the Tribunal s order dated 22nd January, 1999. Held that- Tribunal order rejecting ROM application on the ground that matter remanded before and period involved in earlier order different from present one. Impugned question arising out of facts and not a question of law. Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Applicability of the six-month period under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act for refund claims consequent to Tribunal orders.
2. Justification for refusing refund due to limitation of six months despite depositing duty under protest.
3. Tribunal's failure to address applicant's plea regarding refund claim being consequential to Tribunal's order and the applicability of Section 11B limitation.
4. Admission of additional evidence under Rule 22 of CEGAT Procedure Rules.

Issue 1:
The case involved a dispute over the applicability of the six-month period under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act for refund claims following a Tribunal order. The petitioner sought exemption from excise duty on Raw Naphtha used for production, and the Tribunal had remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority. The Tribunal held that the refund claim was time-barred, as it related to a different period than the Tribunal's order, and there was no mistake apparent on the record requiring rectification.

Issue 2:
The petitioner had deposited Central Excise Duty under protest but faced a rejection of the refund claim by the Tribunal on the grounds of being beyond the six-month limitation period. Despite the deposit being under protest, the Tribunal maintained that the claim was time-barred, leading to a subsequent application for rectification, which was also rejected based on the Tribunal's findings.

Issue 3:
The Tribunal's failure to address the applicant's plea regarding the refund claim being consequential to a previous order, and the non-application of the six-month limitation under Section 11B of the Act, was a key contention. The Tribunal held that the issue raised was debatable and not a clear mistake apparent on the face of the record, leading to the dismissal of the application for rectification.

Issue 4:
Regarding the admission of additional evidence under Rule 22 of the CEGAT Procedure Rules, the Tribunal exercised discretion in disallowing the production of additional evidence, namely letters showing duty deposit under protest. The Tribunal held that the decision to disallow the evidence was based on the facts and circumstances of the case, and there was no error in such discretion exercised.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the application, emphasizing that the questions raised did not amount to clear legal issues necessitating consideration. The Court found that the Tribunal's decisions were based on the facts of the case and did not reveal any apparent mistakes requiring rectification. The legal precedents cited were deemed inapplicable to the specific circumstances of the case, leading to the rejection of the application.