2021 (8) TMI 657

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....8 against the cash amount deposited in their PLA account, for payment of duty as shown in their current account on 30th June, 2017 and was also shown in their ER-1 Return for the month of June, 2017. However, a show cause notice bearing No.9762 dated 31.12.2018 was served upon the appellant proposing rejection of the said refund claim as it appeared to be hit by the limitation of period of one year from the relevant date i.e. the date of account current balance as on 30th June, 2017. The rejection was initially confirmed vide Order-in-Original No.01/2019 dated 23.01.2019. Appeal thereof has been rejected by the Order under challenge. 2. I have heard Shri Sanjay Kumar, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri P. Juneja, learned Departme....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of duty. It also cannot be disputed that the purpose of such account is that the money deposited by the assessee in such account has to be debited there-from as and when the duty for clearance of goods is required to be paid by the assessee i.e. against a liability that has to reckon in future. Admittedly the closing balance of said PLA account as on 30th June, 2017 was Rs. 2,02,162/-. Admittedly as on 30.07.2017 the duty liability of appellant for the impugned period was discharged and the aforesaid amount was appellant's money to be adjusted against any duty liability arising after 01.07.2017. 1st July 2017 has been the date of transition into GST. The aforesaid amount remained unutilized by the appellant. The said closing balance has al....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d of the same that too in cash. This amount cannot been made subjected to any other appropriation. Nor the time limit under Section 11B of CEA can be invoked when such money is sought to be refunded. I draw may support from the decision of this Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in the case of Fluid Control Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE Pune-I reported in 2018 (364) ELT 1041 (Tri. Mumbai) wherein it has been held as follows:- "The limitation prescribed under Section 11B applies to the refund of duty amount. Inasmuch as the lower authorities themselves observed that the amount in question is "duty waiting to be debited", this clearly shows that the same is not duty, in which case, the provision of Section 11B would not apply. Otherwise also I find that the....