9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (4) TMI 352 - SC - Central ExciseDenial of refund claim - Bar of limitation - Held that - In terms of Section 11B, the application for refund is to be made within six months. The assessee is claiming refund for the period from 25.09.1996 to 16.10.1996. An application for refund was made on 30.04.1999 which was beyond six months period. The appellant however, is relying upon the second proviso to Section 11B which stipulates that the limitation of six months would not apply where any duty has been paid under the protest. - appellant contends that it had filed the appeal against the Order-in-Original passed by the Assistant Commissioner denying CT-2 certificate which should be treated as protest. It is argued that the protest as stipulated under Rule 233B of the Rules refers only to a manufacturer and since the appellant is not the manufacturer for whom no mode of protest is stipulated, even filing of the appeal should be treated as protest. Protest as per Rule 233B refers only to a manufacturer and therefore, a person like the appellant, who was only a purchaser could not have made any protest in terms of Rule 233B. Therefore, if protest is lodged in one form or the other that should be construed as satisfying the condition stipulated in second proviso to Section 11B. Having said that, in the present case, we find that the appeal was filed only in September, 1997 or thereafter, though exact date of filing the appeal is not disclosed. Even if this appeal is treated as a form of protest that was much beyond six months period from the date of purchase that is 25.09.1996 to 16.10.1996. Therefore, the so-called protest would not come to the aid of the appellant. We therefore, are of the opinion that application for refund was time barred - Decided against assessee.
Issues:
1. Refund of excise duty paid by the appellant to BPCL for purchase of Naphtha. 2. Locus standi of the appellant to claim the refund. 3. Jurisdiction of the authority where the refund claim was filed. 4. Limitation period for filing the refund application under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Issue 1: Refund of excise duty paid by the appellant to BPCL for purchase of Naphtha The appellant sought a refund of excise duty paid to BPCL for Naphtha purchased during a specific period. The appellant's claim was based on the fact that it had subsequently obtained the necessary certificate to procure Naphtha without duty payment. The refund application was initially rejected by the Assistant Commissioner, citing reasons related to locus standi and limitation period for filing the claim. Issue 2: Locus standi of the appellant to claim the refund The authorities, including the Commissioner (Appeals) and CESTAT, had dismissed the appellant's appeal based on the grounds that the appellant lacked the necessary locus standi to claim the refund. However, the Supreme Court held that Section 11B of the Act allows "any person" eligible to claim a refund of duty paid, emphasizing that the burden of excise duty is often passed on to buyers. The Court referred to a previous judgment to support the appellant's right to seek a refund as a purchaser who had not passed on the duty burden. Issue 3: Jurisdiction of the authority where the refund claim was filed The CESTAT had dismissed the appeal partly on the basis that the appellant had filed the refund claim before the wrong authority. However, the Supreme Court clarified that the appellant had filed the claim with the Central Excise Authorities at Durgapur, where the purchases were made from IOCL. The Court confirmed that the Central Excise authorities at Durgapur had jurisdiction over the IOCL Depot, where the purchases were made, despite the location of the depot at Rajbandh. Issue 4: Limitation period for filing the refund application under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 The appellant's claim for refund was found to be time-barred as the application was filed beyond the six-month period stipulated under Section 11B. The appellant argued that the appeal filed against the denial of the CT-2 certificate should be considered a form of protest, exempting it from the limitation period. However, the Court held that even if the appeal was considered a protest, it was filed well beyond the relevant period for claiming a refund, rendering the application time-barred. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal on the grounds of the limitation period, despite disagreeing with the reasons given by the CESTAT. This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the Supreme Court regarding the refund claim of excise duty paid by the appellant, emphasizing legal principles, interpretations, and conclusions reached by the Court.
|
