9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (7) TMI 381 - AT - Central ExciseRefund claim - amount deposited in PLA is duty or not - time limitation - Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT - Hon ble Apex court in the case of Modipon Ltd. 2017 (11) TMI 1429 - SUPREME COURT has not held that any amount lying pending in PLA is a central excise duty. In fact, the Hon ble Apex Court itself has held that same is a deposit which can be utilized later on for payment of Central Excise Duty. As the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has misinterpreted the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the Modipon Ltd, therefore the said decision is not applicable to the facts of this case. The provisions of Section 11B are not applicable for deposit lying in PLA account for refund and same is to be treated as deposit. The impugned order set aside - refund allowed - appeal allowed.
Issues:
1. Denial of refund claim by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). 2. Interpretation of provisions related to the transfer of PLA balance in the electronic credit ledger. 3. Applicability of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to refund claims. 4. Consideration of unutilized PLA balance as a deposit or duty. 5. Bar on refund claims by Revenue based on limitation. Analysis: 1. The appellant appealed against the denial of their refund claim by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant, a manufacturer of excisable goods, transferred an amount as transitional credit through TRAN-1 in the GST regime. The issue arose when the appellant was asked to deposit wrongly availed input tax credit equivalent to PLA balance along with interest. The appellant complied with the deposit but did not pay the interest, leading to the denial of the refund claim by the adjudicating authority. 2. The key issue revolved around the interpretation of provisions related to the transfer of PLA balance in the electronic credit ledger. The appellant claimed a refund of the unspent amount of PLA balance, which the adjudicating authority sanctioned. However, the Revenue challenged this claim, arguing that it was barred by limitation as per Section 11B of the CGST Act, 2017. 3. The crux of the matter was the applicability of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to refund claims. The appellant contended that the limitation under Section 11B did not apply to unutilized PLA balance. The appellant relied on a Tribunal decision in the case of Huhtamaki India Limited, which held that the limitation of Section 11B did not apply to refund claims of unutilized PLA balance. 4. The dispute also centered on whether the unutilized PLA balance should be considered as a deposit or duty. The appellant argued that the PLA balance was merely an advance deposit for future payment of duty and did not qualify as duty until utilized for duty payment. This argument was supported by the Tribunal's decision in various cases, emphasizing that the unspent balance of PLA was an advance and not duty. 5. Lastly, the Revenue contended that the refund claim was time-barred based on the limitation under Section 11B. However, the Tribunal, following its previous decisions, including the case of Huhtamaki India Limited, held that the provisions of Section 11B were not applicable to deposits lying in the PLA account for refund purposes. Consequently, the impugned order denying the refund claim was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief. In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision clarified the treatment of unutilized PLA balance, emphasizing that it should be considered a deposit and not duty, thereby exempting it from the limitations under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
|
