2017 (7) TMI 1033 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of excess amount paid - time limitation - Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 - whether the refund claim filed by the appellant for refund of excess amount paid in terms of Rule 6(3)(b) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 is to be considered by applying the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and whether such refund claim is admissible? Held that - Provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 clearly indicate as to what is relevant date . By applying the said meaning of relevant date , in the case in hand, the relevant date for claiming the refund of any excess amount paid could be the date on which the appellant has debited the amount of 10% of the value of the exempted goods cleared from his factory which was 31.03.2009 and the refund claim has been filed with the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise on 27.06.2011. Provisions of Section 11B do not permit for filing the refund claim of any amount beyond the period of one year if the same are not paid under protest . In the case in hand, appellant has not paid the amount for which refund claim has been preferred, under protest . On this ground itself, I find that the impugned order is correct and legal and does not suffer from any infirmity - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim under Rule 6(3)(b) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - Applicability of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The appellant, a manufacturer of PSC pipes and BWSC pipes, cleared products with and without payment of central excise duty under specific notifications. They availed CENVAT credit on duty paid inputs and reversed amounts for exempted goods. A refund claim was filed for an amount paid in excess, which was rejected due to being beyond the limitation period under Section 11B. The appellant argued that the refund claim was valid as it was debited back by clients, making Section 11B inapplicable. However, the appellate authority upheld the rejection, citing the relevant date for limitation as the payment date, not the debit date (para. 2-8).

The main issue was whether the refund claim under Rule 6(3)(b) falls under Section 11B. The appellant contended that the refund claim was timely based on the debit date by clients. However, the authority held that the payment date was the relevant date for limitation under Section 11B, rejecting the claim as beyond the prescribed period. The appellant's varying stances on the applicability of Section 11B were noted, leading to the dismissal of the appeal (para. 5-7).

The appellate tribunal concurred with the lower authority's decision, emphasizing the strict adherence to Section 11B's limitation provisions. The appellant's argument that the refund claim was within the time limit based on client debits was deemed invalid, as the relevant date for claiming a refund of excess amount paid was the payment date, not the debit date. The rejection of the refund claim was upheld as legal and correct, highlighting the importance of compliance with statutory provisions (para. 7-8).