Pre-deposit cannot become excess tax payment after Commissioner accepts it for appeal hearing under Section 35F

CESTAT Chennai allowed the appeal regarding recovery of erroneous refund of Rs.4,80,000. The appellant's Chennai unit paid pre-deposit for an appeal arising from Tuticorin Central Excise Division order. Lower authorities rejected refund claim treating pre-deposit as excess tax payment and applying Section 11B limitation. CESTAT held that pre-deposit nature cannot change to excess payment once Commissioner (Appeals) accepted it for appeal hearing. Relying on Suvidhe Ltd. v. Union of India, tribunal ruled Section 11B provisions inapplicable to pre-deposits under Section 35F. Appellant entitled to refund of pre-deposit amount.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Recovery of erroneous refund.
2. Refund claim of pre-deposit and applicability of limitation u/s 11B of CEA, 1944.

Summary:

1. Recovery of Erroneous Refund:
M/s. Alba Industries Limited (formerly known as Beach Minerals Company India Ltd.) filed refund claims under Notification No. 41/2012-ST for services used in export of goods which were initially sanctioned. However, a Show Cause Notice dated 12.07.2021 was issued for recovery of erroneous refund of Rs.63,89,431/- due to allegations of illegal mining and invalid transit permits. The Joint Commissioner confirmed the demand along with interest and penalty.

2. Refund Claim of Pre-deposit and Applicability of Limitation u/s 11B of CEA, 1944:
The appellant paid a pre-deposit of Rs.4,80,000/- on 28.02.2020 under Chennai registration while filing an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Madurai. The Commissioner (Appeals), Madurai set aside the Order-in-Original and remanded the case. The appellant then filed a refund claim for the pre-deposit, which was initially returned by the Deputy Commissioner, Tuticorin, advising to file it before Egmore Division, Chennai. The Assistant Commissioner, Egmore Division, rejected the refund claim on the ground of limitation u/s 11B of CEA, 1944. The appellant argued that the pre-deposit was made u/s 35F and hence, Section 11B was not applicable. They cited several judgments, including Suvidhe Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Estee Auto Pressings (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, to support their contention.

The Tribunal concluded that the pre-deposit made by the appellant was for availing the remedy of an appeal and not an excess payment of duty. Therefore, the provisions of Section 11B of CEA, 1944 were not applicable. The Tribunal allowed the appeal and ordered the refund of Rs.4,80,000/- with consequential relief as per law.

---