2017 (12) TMI 707 - AT - Central Excise

Appellant's Refund Claim Rejected as Time-Barred Under Central Excise Act

The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the appellant's refund claim, deeming it time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The ... Refund of excess paid duty - time limitation - Section 11B of CEA - Held that: - in this case the refund claim has been filed after more than four years from the date of finalisation of provisional price - there is no infirmity in the impugned order - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. Issues:Refund claim time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.Analysis:The appeal was against the Commissioner (A)'s order rejecting the appellant's appeal. The appellants, registered manufacturers of LPG cylinders, cleared cylinders to oil companies during a specific period. The oil companies reduced rates, but the appellant received intimation post-clearance. The duty was paid on higher rates, leading to an excess payment of Rs. 24,87,102 during the subject period. The refund claim was filed, but it was deemed time-barred by the department. The adjudicating authority and Commissioner (A) rejected the claim, prompting the present appeal.The appellant argued that the impugned order did not properly consider the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. They claimed the pricelists were provisional, mentioned in purchase orders, and the refund claims were filed post-finalization. The appellant contended that since prices were contracted, provisional assessment was unnecessary, and Section 11B's limitation did not apply. They cited the decision in CCE Vs. R. M. Cylinders Pvt. Ltd.: 2006 (198) ELT 48 to support their position.The learned AR defended the impugned order, highlighting the correspondence between the appellant and oil companies. He argued that the refund claim was time-barred under Section 11B, filed four years post finalization of provisional prices. The AR referenced various decisions to support his stance, including MRF Ltd.: 1997 (92) ELT 309 (SC) and Maharashtra Cylinders Pvt. Ltd.: 2010 (259) ELT 369 (Bom.).Upon review, the Tribunal found no issue with the impugned order. The refund claim was filed over four years post finalization of provisional prices, aligning with Section 11B's limitation. The decisions cited by the AR were deemed applicable, leading to the dismissal of the appellant's appeal. The order was pronounced on 27.11.2017.