9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (4) TMI 572 - AT - Central ExciseRefund - period of limitation - section 11B - Held that - statutory period of limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is one year. The notification seeks to whittle down the period provided under the statute. - The Tribunal applied the statutory period of one year as provided under Section 11B and held that the refund claims cannot be held to be time-barred only for the reason that they were filed beyond six months which is the period prescribed under the relevant notification
Issues:
1. Refund claims for overpaid duty on motor cars rejected as time-barred under a notification prescribing a six-month limitation period. Analysis: The judgment dealt with the issue of refund claims amounting to Rs.22,95,991/- and Rs.8,74,624/- for duty paid on motor cars. The refund was sought on the basis that the cars, intended for use as taxis, were eligible for a concessional duty rate of 16% ad valorem, while duty was paid at 32% ad valorem. The claims were rejected due to being filed beyond the prescribed six-month limitation period under a notification. However, the Tribunal noted that the statutory limitation period under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is one year. The Tribunal referenced previous decisions and held that the notification cannot override the statutory period. It was established that the claims were not time-barred solely for being filed after six months. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the case for a fresh decision on the merits of the refund claims. In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision clarified that the statutory limitation period of one year under Section 11B prevails over any shorter period prescribed in a notification. The judgment emphasized the importance of considering statutory provisions in determining the timeliness of refund claims. By setting aside the previous order and remanding the case for reconsideration on the merits, the Tribunal ensured that the claims would be evaluated fairly by the adjudicating authority. This ruling underscores the significance of adhering to statutory timelines while also ensuring a thorough examination of refund claims on their merits.
|
