TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 408
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appellants use transformer oil, purchased from third parties. During the disputed period, the appellants had entered into contract with M/s Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., West Bengal for supply and installation of the transformers at the customer's site. As per the contract, the appellants were required to dispatch transformers along with transformer oil. For supply of the transformers, the appellants have computed and paid the central excise duty on the assessable value of both transformer and transformer oil. But, the transformer oil was not supplied along with the transformers. The said oil was subsequently supplied on payment of appropriate central excise duty. The appellants realized their mistake that duty liability had been ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aggrieved with the impugned order dated 16.08.2010, the appellants have preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 2. The Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that since the appellants have inadvertently paid duty twice on transformer oil, taking of suo motto credit in the Cenvat account is proper and justified. In this context, he has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of C.Ex., Bangalore - III Vs. Motorola India Pvt. Ltd. - 2006 (206) ELT 90 (Kar.). Further, he has submitted that in view of the said judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, the decision of Tribunal in case of Comfit Sanitary Napkins (supra) gets vitiated and as such, reliance placed on the said decisio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... account. Thus, he submitted that the case of the appellants is governed by the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for filing of refund application, instead of taking suo motto credit. The Learned AR has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries (supra) and the Larger Bench decision of this Tribunal in the case of BDH Industries Ltd. (supra), to state that in absence of any provisions contained in the central excise statute, allowing the assessee to take suo motto credit, the only remedy available was for filing of refund application, which admittedly has not been complied with by the appellants. Thus, he contended that the impugned order passed by the Learned Commissioner (A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uch cases, a manufacturer of excisable goods is permitted under the statute to claim refund of Central Excise duty paid in excess. Refund claim is governed under Section 11B ibid. The said statutory provision prescribes inter alia, the time limit for filing of refund application and fulfilment of the aspect of doctrine of unjust enrichment. The central excise statute does not provide any mechanism for taking of suo motto credit in the Cenvat account by the manufacturer. Since the issue involved in this case pertains to double payment of duty on transformer oil, the only recourse left to the appellants was to claim refund of the excess duty paid by it, in terms of Section 11B ibid, which admittedly has not been complied with by the appellant....