2002 (4) TMI 683

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e-barred in terms of Section 11B of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order while deciding the issue in favour of the party observed that it is seen that the course of action for refund arose in this case only when the credit wrongly taken was reversed on May, 1996. Only at that point of time double payment of Cess and a ground for refund in respect thereof arose. Accordingly the refund claim was well in time. 3. The Respondents, M/s. Sudhir Papers (P) Ltd. had filed refund claim of Cess paid in RG 23A pt. II after expiry of six months from the relevant date as stipulated in the provisions of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944, In the instant case, the assessee has paid the amount payabl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cable to the credit wrongly taken and in this context he referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur v. Raghuvar (India) Ltd. [2000 (118) E.L.T. 311] wherein it was held that provisions of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 has no application to any action taken under Rule 57-I, prior to its amendment on 6-10-1998, and Rule 57-I is not in any manner subject to Section 11A. He said that similarly Section 11B of the Central Excise Act is not applicable with reference to credit wrongly taken. He also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of C. Excise, Chandigarh v. JCT Ltd. reported in 1999 (107) E.L.T. 455 and Commissioner of C. Excise, Calcutta-II v. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er more if contention of the party is accepted that what they have paid at the initial stage was not duty but only a deposit, then only course is open to recover that money/deposit through Civil Court subject to limitation under General Limitation Act. Since the Section 11B is the only Section concerns with refund claim and party has filed a refund claim, the Assistant Commissioner was right in rejecting the claim as barred by time. I am in agreement with the arguments advanced by the Departmental Representative that Revenue authorities acting under the Act were bound by the provisions of the statute. Precisely this was the view of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Doaba Co-operative Sugar Mills rep .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X