TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether a purchaser who had borne the excise duty had locus standi to seek refund under Section 11B; (ii) whether the refund claim was made before the proper excise authority having jurisdiction; and (iii) whether the claim was barred by limitation or saved by payment under protest.
Issue (i): whether a purchaser who had borne the excise duty had locus standi to seek refund under Section 11B.
Analysis: Section 11B permits an application by "any person" claiming refund, and the explanation to the provision recognizes a person other than the manufacturer. The relevant date for such a person is the date of purchase of the goods. The provision, therefore, contemplates refund claims by a buyer who has borne the duty, provided the incidence has not been passed on. That interpretation is consistent with the settled position that refund is not confined to the manufacturer alone.
Conclusion: the purchaser had locus standi to maintain the refund claim.
Issue (ii): whether the refund claim was made before the proper excise authority having jurisdiction.
Analysis: The claim was filed before the Central Excise authorities at Durgapur, and the purchases were from the depot linked to the refinery at Durgapur. The jurisdictional basis of the department's authorities was, therefore, not lacking. The objection that the application was made to the wrong authority was factually unsustainable.
Conclusion: the refund claim was not rejected on the ground of want of jurisdiction in the receiving authority.
Issue (iii): whether the claim was barred by limitation or saved by payment under protest.
Analysis: Section 11B requires a refund application to be made within six months, unless duty was paid under protest. Although protest may be inferred in a suitable form for a purchaser who cannot use the manufacturer-specific procedure under Rule 233B, the alleged protest in this case arose much later than six months from the relevant purchase period. As the refund application itself was filed beyond six months, the claim was not protected by the proviso relating to protest.
Conclusion: the refund claim was time-barred and not saved by protest.
Final Conclusion: the Court upheld dismissal of the refund claim, but on the ground of limitation, after rejecting the objections relating to locus standi and jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 permits a refund claim by a purchaser who has borne the duty, but such claim must be filed within the prescribed limitation period unless payment under protest is shown within that period.
TaxTMI 
