TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 452
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the balance amount lying in PLA account of the appellant. They have relied on the decision of the Tribunal in their won case issued vide Order No. A/10725/2022 dated 23.06.2022. However, they requested that the matter may be decided on the basis of record. 3. Learned AR relies on the impugned order. 4. I have considered the rival submissions. I find that the issue involved is applicability of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1994 for the refund of balance amount laying in the PLA account. The appellant have relied on the decision of Tribunal's own case vide Order No. A/10725/2022 dated 23.06.2022 wherein following has been observed:- "4. I have carefully considered the submission made by both sides and perused the recor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt 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, recorded that the provisions of Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 granting interest....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 law to enable that person to get the duty already appropriated back from the S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 in the case of Jay Shree Tea & Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Exci....