9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 1320 - AT - Central ExciseRefund - Time limitation - Held that - I find that the appellant had originally paid the duty through Cenvat and on the directions of the Revenue, the same duty was again paid through PLA. Immediately after paying such duty in PLA, the appellant approached the Revenue for taking the credit of the Cenvat which was earlier paid by them. However, they were directed to file a refund claim before the Assistant Commissioner of the Division - Tribunal in the case of CCE, Ghaziabad Vs. Sharda Forging & Stamping Pvt. Ltd. 2008 (10) TMI 224 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI wherein it was held that it is a case of adjustment of the amount of duty paid twice - It is not hit by limitation under Section 11B of the Act as it being merely an accountal adjustment - Appeal allowed.
Issues:
1. Time bar for filing refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. 2. Double payment of duty through Cenvat and PLA. 3. Application of unjust enrichment in refund claims. Issue 1: Time bar for filing refund claim under Section 11B: The case involved M/s. Specetech Equipment & Structurals Pvt. Ltd., where the appellant sought re-credit of duty paid through Cenvat during a specific period. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claim as time-barred, filed after one year from the relevant date. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, emphasizing the need to file the claim within one year of the duty payment date. The appellant argued citing the Tribunal's decision in Standard Surfactants Ltd., Vs. CCE, Bhopal, that duty paid through both Modvat credit and PLA is an account adjustment and not subject to time bar under Section 11B. Issue 2: Double payment of duty through Cenvat and PLA: The Tribunal analyzed the case, noting that the duty was initially paid through Cenvat and later through PLA as directed by the Revenue. The appellant sought re-credit of the Cenvat duty paid earlier. Referring to the case law of CCE, Ghaziabad Vs. Sharda Forging & Stamping Pvt. Ltd. and Standard Surfactants Ltd., the Tribunal found that the double payment was an accountal adjustment. The Tribunal emphasized that the rejection of the refund claim on time bar grounds was unjustified, as the appellant had paid twice for the same event, making it eligible for credit back in their Modvat account. Issue 3: Application of unjust enrichment in refund claims: The Tribunal considered the application of unjust enrichment in such cases and referred to the decision in Cipla Ltd., Vs. CCE, Raigad, where it was held that the bar of unjust enrichment does not apply in similar circumstances. Relying on the Tribunal's decision and precedent cases, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, granting consequential relief to the appellant. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's refund claim under Section 11B could not be rejected as time-barred due to the nature of the double payment scenario. In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment in the case of M/s. Specetech Equipment & Structurals Pvt. Ltd. highlighted the nuances of time bar for refund claims, the concept of double payment through Cenvat and PLA, and the application of unjust enrichment principles in such scenarios. The decision provided clarity on the eligibility of the appellant for refund and set aside the lower authority's order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief.
|
