TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 65
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ity and rejected the appellant's appeal. The prayer in this appeal is to set aside the entire order-in-appeal and grant consequential reliefs. However, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the issue in this matter is an application for refund of Rs 6,35,36,825/- of which an amount of Rs 2,12,51,407/- was paid by the appellant during proceedings before the Settlement Commission. He is not pressing for refund of this amount as the amount is paid in pursuance of the proceedings before the Settlement Commission. He prays for refund of the balance of 4,22,85,418/-. The period in dispute in the present case is 1.4.2014 to 8.6.2015. The appellant is a manufacturer of cement and in some cases sells cement to the customers on FOR destinati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ugh challans: Year Challan No. & date Freight (Rs) Excise duty (Rs) Interest (Rs) Total (Rs) 2014-15 0284/27.06.2015 28,63,15,072 3,15,40,108 35,45,408 3,50,85,516 April 2015 0485/09.06.2015 3,06,62,348 34,07,074 57,127 3464201 May 2015 2743/06.06.2015 2,89,13,699 32,12,570 0 31,12,570 1.06.2015 to 8.6.2015 4301/06.07.2015 47,08,183 5,23,131 0 5,23,131 TOTAL 3,86,82,883 36,02,535 4,22,85,418 After these amounts were paid, no show-cause notice under Section 11A to demand the duty and appropriate the amounts paid by the appellants were issued by the Revenue. On 10.08.2016, the appellant filed a refund claim for the amou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt of deposit for two reasons: Firstly, it is not liable to pay any excise duty on the freight. Secondly, the amounts which were paid were never appropriated by the Department as duty of excise under Section 11A and therefore continue to be deposits only. For these reasons, the limitation under Section 11B of one year from the date of payment of duty for filing the refund claim does not apply to the appellant's case. The Learned counsel relied on the following case laws: 1) Way to wealth Brokers Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise Bengaluru [2022(61)GSTL 349(kar) 2) Central Office Mewar Palace Org Vs UOI 2008(12)STR 545 (Raj) 3) Rattan India Power Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs C.Ex and CGST, Delhi [2022(65)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts were not reflected either in the ER-1 returns for the period or those for the subsequent months. The order-in-original and the order-in-appeal also do not reflect that these amounts were reflected in the ER-1 returns. 7. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the records. Of the total amount claimed in the appeal only an amount of Rs 4,22,85,418 paid through four challans is being pressed by the appellant. Undisputedly, these amounts were not paid in the normal course of self-assessment and were not reflected in the ER-1 returns but were paid as differential duty of excise through those challans after being pointed out by the department. If any duty is not levied, not paid, short paid, or short paid or erroneousl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h of cases where duties were paid during the course of assessment and without assailing such assessments (some of which were self-assessments) claims for refund was filed. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that an assessment, including self-assessment attains finality and needs to be appealed against before a Higher Judicial Forum and without such an appeal or modification otherwise of the assessment, no refund can be sanctioned. In the present case, the amounts were not paid during the course of assessment but were paid subsequently. Learned counsel has, after consulting the appellant confirmed that the amounts so paid have not been reflected as duty in the ER-1 Returns either for those periods or for subsequent period. Therefore, the ITC Ltd doe....