2000 (5) TMI 416 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Duty payment on electricity generation.
2. Claim for refund based on excess duty paid.
3. Rejection of refund claim on grounds of limitation.
4. Appeal against rejection of refund claim.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a unit of the Government of West Bengal, was involved in the generation and supply of electricity falling under Item No. 11E of the Central Excise Tariff. Duty on electricity was charged at 0.02 paise per kilowatt-hour, which the appellant paid based on monthly statements of generation approved by their Commercial Wing. Due to financial constraints, the appellant paid duty in lump sum instalments with department approval, without specific allocation to particular periods, leading to delayed assessments by the Department.

2. Upon reconciliation, it was discovered that the appellant had overpaid duty. They claimed a refund within six months of the last payment, which was rejected by the authorities citing limitation as the excess payment related to the period of January 1982 to April 1983. The appellant argued that since payments were not linked to specific periods and were made with department consent, the refund claim should not be time-barred.

3. The appellant contended that the excess duty payment was not attributable to any specific period due to the flexible payment arrangement with the Revenue. The Tribunal agreed, holding that the refund claim was not time-barred as the payments were not linked to any particular period. The Tribunal found that the appellant's refund claim was within the limitation period and allowed the appeal by remanding the matter for the calculation of the duty refund.

4. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's submission regarding the lack of discussion on the actual quantum of refund. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority for the precise calculation of the duty refund. The appeal was allowed based on the finding that the refund claim was not barred by limitation, given the unique circumstances of the case and the absence of specific period allocation in the duty payments.