TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 1176
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder section 11 B is applicable in the case of refund of unspent PLA Balance. 2. Shri Mahesh Tailor, DGM (Indirect Taxation) of the appellant's company submits that in the case of refund of PLA Balance section 11 B is not applicable. He placed reliance on the following judgments: • NAVDEEP PACKAGING INDUSTRIES - 2007 (210) ELT 417 (TRI. MUMBAI) • JAY SHREE TEA & INDUSTRIES LTD - 2005 (190) ELT 106 (TRI.- KOLKATA) • BIJALIMONI TEA ESTATE - 2007 (215) ELT 63 (TRI.- KOLKATA) 3. Shri Dinesh Prithiani, Assistant Commissioner(AR) appearing on behalf of Revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. He relies upon the decision of this tribunal in the case of VALSON POLYESTER LTD.- 2011(274) ELT 4....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 11B, the Commissioner records that unjust enrichment shall not apply to refund of unspent PLA balance, but at the same time he also records that he does not mean that the unspent PLA balance is duty. He has recorded that the said provision has been incorporated as an abundant precaution to ensure that even by mistake, the provision of unjust enrichment is not applied for such refund. He also records that since there is a specific provision for refund of PLA balance under Rule 9(1A) and 173G(1A) of the said Rules, therefore, such refund would be squarely covered under the said Rules and not under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. 1944. which applies only for refund of duty. He has, therefore, r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ded in writing permit such assessee to withdraw the amount in accordance with such procedure as the [Commissioner] may specify in this behalf." It is clear that for withdrawing an amount from such account-current only requires a permission from the Commissioner concerned. Neither the law of limitation nor the theory of unjust enrichment is applicable on such deposit. It is the money belonging to the appellant and has a right to withdraw it. There is a distinction between the amount appropriate towards duty and amount deposited for payment of a duty. In a former case duty which has only been levied and paid evidently becomes the property of the Government and no person would be entitled to get it back unless there is a provision of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty on Tea & Tea Waste w.e.f 1-3-03, the claim of the appellants was denied. 3. Ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that if any refund of duty is claimed under Central Excise Act, 1944, due process of law as required under Section 11B of Central Excise Rules, 1944, should be followed and the authorities have rightly rejected claim for the appellant. Meeting to such point, the ld. Counsel has submitted that the Central Board of Excise & Customs has already issued instruction vide F. No. 202/24/72-CX. 6, dated 6-1-78, in consultation with the Ministry of Law to the effect that un-utilised amount in PLA is refundable to the appellants and relying on this instruction, the appellant submitted that this Bench has already decided such matter ....