2014 (7) TMI 880 - HC - Central Excise

Refund of duty paid by the supplier of goods - locus standi - claim of exemption for the return stream - claim of IPCL was rejected on the ground that buyer may be entitled to get the refund - the petitioner (GPL) being buyer of the gas has filed instead of filing refund claim filed an appeal before the tribunal against the order of Commissioner (appeals) passed against the supplier - tribunal rejected the claim of petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has no locus standi - Held that - as such, the refund claims of the petitioner would be barred by the limitation provided under Section 11B(2) of the Act. If, the petitioner would have preferred independent applications for refund of the claim under Section 11B(2) of the Act in that case, the applications of the petitioner for refund of the claim would be required to be rejected on the ground of limitation. Under the circumstances, no error has been committed by the learned Tribunal in dismissing the appeals preferred by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has no locus standi to prefer appeals against the order of the Commissioner( Appeals), rejecting the appeals preferred by the IPCL and confirming the order passed by the Asst. Collector, rejecting the refund claim applications of the IPCL. - Decided against the petitioner. Whether the petitioner is aggrieved person - Held that - as such, by the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) no liability would have been fastened upon the petitioner. - By the impugned order, if any, liability would have been fastened, then and then, the petitioner can be said to be a person aggrieved . Under the circumstance, the contention on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner can be said to be a person aggrieved , and therefore, his appeals ought to have been entertained by the Appellate Tribunal, deserves rejection. - Decided against the petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
1. Locus standi of the petitioner to file appeals against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).
2. Entitlement of the petitioner to claim refund of Excise Duty paid by another entity.
3. Interpretation of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act regarding refund applications.
4. Application of Section 35B of the Act in determining locus standi.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Locus standi of the petitioner
The petitioner filed appeals challenging the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting refund claims of another entity, IPCL. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals stating the petitioner lacked locus standi. The petitioner argued they were "aggrieved" under Section 35B(1) of the Act. However, the court held that as the IPCL, not the petitioner, submitted refund applications and did not challenge the Commissioner's order, the petitioner was not directly affected. The court emphasized that no liability was imposed on the petitioner by the previous orders.

Issue 2: Entitlement to claim refund
The petitioner contended they were entitled to a refund under Section 11B(2)(e) as a buyer of goods subject to duty. However, the court noted the petitioner failed to submit refund applications within the statutory time limit. By filing appeals against the IPCL's rejected claims, the petitioner sought refunds indirectly. The court highlighted that the petitioner's refund claims would be time-barred under Section 11(2) if filed independently.

Issue 3: Interpretation of Section 11B
The court clarified that the petitioner's failure to follow the procedure under Section 11B for refund applications led to the dismissal of their appeals. The court emphasized that the petitioner's actions were not in line with the statutory requirements for claiming refunds under the Act.

Issue 4: Application of Section 35B
Regarding the reliance on Section 35B and a previous court decision, the court ruled that no liability was imposed on the petitioner by the Commissioner's order. Therefore, the petitioner could not be considered "aggrieved" as claimed. The court rejected the argument that the petitioner had locus standi based on this provision.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioner failed to establish locus standi and did not comply with the statutory requirements for claiming refunds. The court discharged the rule with no costs awarded.