2019 (8) TMI 1171 - AT - Central Excise

Refund applications denied for late filing under Section 11B of Central Excise Act

The Tribunal upheld the rejection of refund applications for central excise duty paid on exported goods due to filing beyond the one-year period from duty ... Refund of central excise duty paid on the exported goods - time limitation - Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - appellants did not deposit the duty amount under protest and not opted for the provisional assessment - HELD THAT:- Section 11B ibid provides the mechanism for filing of refund application and consideration of the same by the statutory authorities. The statutory provision inter alia, mandates that the refund application should be filed by the claimant before the expiry of one year from the relevant date. As per the explanation contained in Section 11B ibid, the term ‘relevant date’ for consideration of the present dispute can be itemized either under clauses (eb) or (f) of the above reproduced explanation. In this case, it is an admitted fact on record that the appellants did not resort to the provisional assessment for payment of duty in question on removal of final product from the factory. Thus, the case of the appellants will not be governed under clause (eb) above for consideration of the relevant date differently - Admittedly, in this case, the appellants had filed the refund applications beyond the period of one year from the date of payment of duty attributable to exportation of goods. Since the provisions of Section 11B ibid have not prescribed any specific relevant date for consideration of filing of refund claim after obtaining the proof of export of goods, the relevant date for such purpose should be governed only under clause (f) contained in the explanation appended to Section 11B ibid. In this case, the appellants had deposited the central excise duty on removal of excisable goods from the factory premises. Such amount of duty was deposited into the Central Government account under proper accounting code. Thus, under the circumstances, it cannot be pleaded that the duty amount deposited by them should be construed as ‘mere deposit’ in the hands of the Government and for grant of the said refund amount, the provisions of Section 11B ibid would not be applicable. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. Issues:- Refund application barred by limitation of time under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.Analysis:1. Background: The case involves an appeal against the order rejecting refund applications for central excise duty paid on exported goods due to delay in filing beyond the prescribed period.2. Appellants' Argument: The appellants contended that the refund claim should not be barred by limitation as they deposited the duty amount into the government exchequer and filed the refund applications within one year of receiving proof of export.3. Revenue's Argument: The Revenue argued that the refund applications were rightly rejected as they were filed beyond the one-year period from the date of duty payment, voluntarily made by the appellants.4. Legal Provisions: Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 governs the filing of refund applications and mandates that claims should be made within one year from the relevant date, as defined in the Act.5. Interpretation of Relevant Date: The Tribunal analyzed the definition of 'relevant date' under Section 11B, highlighting that in this case, the relevant date should be considered as the 'date of payment of duty,' as the appellants did not opt for provisional assessment.6. Deposit vs. Payment of Duty: The Tribunal clarified that the duty amount deposited by the appellants should be treated as actual payment of duty, subject to the time limit prescribed under Section 11B for filing refund claims.7. Legal Precedents: The Tribunal cited judgments by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to emphasize the importance of adhering to statutory time limits for filing refund claims, stating that authorities must follow the provisions of the statute without extending the time limit.8. Decision: After thorough analysis, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order rejecting the refund applications, as the appellants failed to file within the prescribed one-year period from the date of duty payment, in accordance with Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.9. Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, and the decision was pronounced in open court on 26.08.2019 by the Member (Judicial) of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI.