2021 (3) TMI 884

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....required for consideration, are as under: (i) The Headquarters Preventive Wing of the Central Excise Commissionerate conducted investigation wherein it was revealed that the appellant was manufacturing and clearing ingots bearing name/marking of another person/unit without payment of Excise Duty. (ii) The goods manufactured by the appellant bore the markings "R K I" belonging to another company namely, M/s. R.K. Metals Industry. (iii) For the above reason, SSI exemption availed by the appellant was sought to be denied vide Show Cause Notice No. 75/2006 dated 03.10.2006. (iv) It is not in dispute that during investigation, the appellant had paid an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- (vide challan dated 14.08.2006 fo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the arguments advanced on behalf of the assessee-appellant is that the amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- paid during the investigation tantamounts to deposit under protest and as such, the same was not hit by the mischief of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 with regard to the time limitation when a refund of the same is claimed. 5.2 In support of his case, Learned Advocate for the appellant would also rely on the following decisions: (i) M/s. Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India [1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.)]; (ii) Commr. of Central Excise v. M/s. Advance Steel Tubes Ltd. [2018 (11) G.S.T.L. 341 (All.)]; (iii) The Commr. of Central Excise, Coimbatore v. M/s. Pricol Ltd. [2015 (320) E.L.T. 703 (Mad.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....2 He also argued that relevant date as defined in (ec) ibid. clearly carves out an exception from a claim for refund in the normal course, i.e., where refund is not claimed as a consequence of any Appellate Order/(s) specified thereunder. 7. After considering the rival contentions, the undisputed fact that remains is that the refund is claimed as a consequence of CESTAT's Final Order No. 41775 of 2017 dated 21.08.2017 and hence, it is not a normal refund claim. The legislature in its wisdom has inserted (ec) under Explanation (B) to Section 11B with effect from 11.05.2007 with a purpose, thereby carving out an exception from a normal refund claim. This according to me is in the nature of a special provision and hence, any claims m....