2005 (8) TMI 189 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Refund claim rejection based on Limitation Act for unspent advance deposit in PLA account.

In this case, the appellant lodged two refund claims for unspent advance deposits in their PLA account. The appellant argued that the amount in question, although deposited in PLA, was not a duty but advance money that could not be utilized due to the withdrawal of Central Excise duty. The appellant contended that the rejection of the refund claim based on the Limitation Act was incorrect as Section 11B(1) pertains to the refund of excise duty, not advance deposits. The appellant's appeal was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the appellant challenging the decision on the grounds of misinterpretation of facts and law. The appellant sought allowance of the appeal based on a clarification issued by the Board.

The Judicial Member heard arguments from both sides. The Advocate for the Appellant emphasized that the amount in question was an unspent advance deposit in the PLA account, not a duty, and therefore, the Limitation Act should not apply. The JDR supported the impugned order and referenced a Board clarification advising the refund of unutilized amounts in the PLA account. The JDR highlighted that Rule 173G (1A) outlines the procedure for withdrawing money from the account-current, emphasizing that the money in the PLA account belonged to the appellant and was not subject to limitations or unjust enrichment principles. The JDR distinguished between amounts appropriated towards duty and amounts deposited for future duty payment, asserting that the money in the PLA account remained the appellant's property, especially since it could not be utilized due to changes in Central Excise duty regulations. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting consequential benefits to the Appellant.