Appellant's duty payment reclassified as duty, not deposit, subject to one-year limitation.

The Tribunal held that the second payment made by the Appellant should be treated as duty, not a deposit, based on the precedent set in the BDH Industries case. As such, the Refund Claim for the excess duty payment made in error was subject to the one-year limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal dismissed arguments invoking the Limitation Act and the relevance of a Board's Circular and a Supreme Court decision, ultimately rejecting the Appeal for lacking merit.

---

---

Issues:
1. Refund claim for excess payment of duty made by mistake.
2. Applicability of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.
3. Treatment of second payment as a deposit.
4. Interpretation of the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in BDH Industries case.
5. Applicability of the Limitation Act in the present case.
6. Comparison of relevant provisions with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Auriaya Chamber of Commerce case.
7. Relevance of the Board's Circular F. No. 5/7/71-CX-1.

Analysis:
1. The Appellant cleared PVC resin and took CENVAT Credit on 19-3-2007 but mistakenly paid duty again on 31-3-2007. The Refund Claim for the second payment was rejected citing Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, which requires such claims to be filed within one year from the date of excess payment of duty.

2. The Appellant argued that the second payment should be considered a deposit and not duty, thus falling under the Limitation Act's 3-year period for refunds made under mistake of law. They also relied on a Board's Circular and a Supreme Court decision to support their argument.

3. The Tribunal, however, held that any payment debited in the accounts towards duty must be treated as duty, as per the decision of the Larger Bench in the BDH Industries case. Therefore, the second payment cannot be considered a deposit, and the Refund Claim is for duty paid, subject to the one-year limitation under Section 11B.

4. The Tribunal dismissed the Appellant's argument regarding the applicability of the Limitation Act, clarifying that the decision of the Larger Bench must be followed in this case. The Tribunal differentiated the Auriaya Chamber of Commerce case, stating that without comparing relevant provisions, no decision could be reached.

5. The Tribunal also disregarded the Board's Circular, noting that the Tribunal's decision of the Larger Bench postdates both the Circular and the Supreme Court decision. Consequently, the Appeal was deemed to lack merit and was rejected.

---