2016 (12) TMI 1223

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uring the year 2002 and 2003 the appellant had paid excise duty by utilizing Cenvat credit, which was not permitted due to default in monthly payment.  The case  was already made out by the department for demand of duty in cash(PLA) instead of  payment made by debiting RG 23A Part II.  In the matter of this case, as per Tribunal's order  dated 28/2/2013, appellant had paid duty through PLA. The matter  was traveled up to Hon'ble High Court on the issue of order withdrawing  the facility of paying duty  on fortnightly basis and assessee  was directed to pay the duty on each consignment basis from PLA.  The Hon'ble High court  vide its order dated 29/3/2012 upheld the Order of the Tribuna....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....  under any circumstances  law does not  permit  duty to be charged twice on the same product therefore  excess paid  amount is liable to be refunded.  He submits that any amount paid over and above the actual duty liability should be considered as deposit and has to be refunded.  He placed reliance on the following judgments: (a)  GAURI PLASTICULTURE (P) LTD.Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE [2006 (202) E.L.T. 199 (Tri. - LB)] (b)  COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH  Versus ANSYSCO [2014 (314) E.L.T. 242 (Tri. - Del.)] (c)   DOABA ALCO CHEMICALS  Versus  COMMR. OF C. EX., JALANDHAR[2010 (250) E.L.T. 81 (Tri. - Del.) ] (e)   SREE KAD....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sp; Section 11B the refund should  have been filed within one year  from the date of  payment of duty therefore refund  claim filed by the appellant is clearly time bar, therefore  the refund was  correctly held as time bar by the both the lower authorities. 5.  I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. 6.  I find that refund claim was rejected grossly on the ground of time bar, for the reason that duty of Rs. 5,80,000/-, for which refund  claim was filed was paid in 2002-03, however refund claim was filed in 2013.  Accordingly both the lower authorities held refund claim as time bar.  I find that litigation was going on  the issue wh....