2000 (6) TMI 506 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Rejection of refund claim by Asst. Commissioner
- Dispute over assessable value of fans sold by Vikas Engineering
- Eligibility of appellants for refund of excess excise duty
- Barred by limitation under Section 11B for filing refund claim after six months from purchase

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi stemmed from the rejection of a refund claim by the Asst. Commissioner. The case revolved around an agreement between the appellants and M/s. Vikas Engineering for the sale of electric oscillating table fans under the brand name 'Cinni.' The Department contested the assessable value of the fans, leading to a dispute over the price. M/s. Vikas Engineering paid duty under protest from a certain date, prompting the appellants to file a refund claim for the excess excise duty paid. The Asst. Commissioner initially accepted the refund application, ruling that the appellants were eligible for the duty paid through PLA but not for the amount paid through RG 23A Part II. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this decision, setting off a series of appeals and counter-appeals.

Subsequently, the Asst. Commissioner rejected a refund claim by M/s. Vikas Engineering, alleging that they had passed on the burden of excess excise duty to their customers. The appellants appealed this decision, leading to a remand by the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision by the Asst. Commissioner. In the subsequent proceedings, the Asst. Commissioner deemed the refund claim by the appellants as barred by limitation under Section 11B due to being filed beyond six months from the date of purchase. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, prompting the appellants to appeal to the Tribunal.

During the Tribunal proceedings, both parties acknowledged that the issue had been addressed by a Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in a previous case involving the same appellants. The Tribunal, after reviewing the Larger Bench decision, concurred with the ruling that the refund claim must be filed within six months from the date of purchase, even if duty had been paid under protest by the manufacturer. Consequently, the appeal was rejected based on the precedent set by the Larger Bench decision, thereby upholding the limitation under Section 11B for filing refund claims beyond the stipulated timeframe.