TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (5) TMI 164
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y consumed by it in the manufacture of urea. Naphtha required for the purpose of manufacturing urea is procured by the appellant from Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL). Such procurement was under nil/concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 75/84-C.E., dated 1-3-1984 and its successor Notification No. 8/96-C.E., dated 23-7-1996. The appellant had made application on 12-1-1996 for registration under Rule 192 of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 for the purpose of obtaining Naphtha under concessional rate of duty. On 20-2-1996 the Superintendent of Shahjahanpur was informed about the appellant receiving duty paid Naphtha w.e.f. 20-2-1996 for manufacture of fertilizer. By order dated 8-7-1997 the appellant's applica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and documents. The appellant sent a reply on 9-8-1999. Thereafter appellant received a show cause notice dated 30-1-2001 issued by Assistant Commissioner, Dhubri proposing to reject the refund on the ground that the application was beyond time limit specified under Section 11B. This was followed by order dated 31-12-2002 passed by the Assistant Commissioner rejecting the refund claim on three grounds :- (i) appellant did not procure naphtha from a manufacturing unit, (ii) refund was hit by unjust enrichment, and (iii) refund has been filed on 17-5-1999 which is beyond the period of six months from 20-10-1998 being the date of order of the Commissioner (Appeals) which has resulted in the present refund claim. Aggr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... right granted under Section 11B to a buyer to claim refund cannot be defeated on the ground that there is no rule prescribing the mode of payment of duty under protest by the buyer. It is pointed out that even before introduction of Rule 233B Tribunal has taken the view that while considering the cases under Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 that if a manufacturer pays duty under protest the period of limitation will not be applicable. It is submitted that the appellant was pursuing its remedy when the department denied its eligibility for concessional rate of duty. Ultimately by order dated 30-10-1998 the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed its claim. The very filing of the appeal by the appellant should be taken as a protest against payme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....question of passing on excise duty burden does not arise at all. The appellant had submitted before the authorities below certificate dated 25-9-1999 issued by Fertilizer Industry Co-ordination Committee, Department of Fertilizer, Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers (FICC, for short). The above certificate clearly states that excise duty paid on naphtha used as fuel for manufacturing urea was not admitted while considering the retention price. This would clearly show that the price of urea has been fixed by Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers without considering the excise duty paid on naphtha. The appellant produced a certificate dated 12-7-2002 issued by the Chartered Accountant. This would also support the case of the appellant that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is also relevant to note that the authorities below were not computing the period of limitation from the date of payment by the appellant. Apart from the above, the appellant is only justified in contending that it was under the bona fide belief that the application for refund has to be filed before the Assistant Commissioner, Sitapur and therefore, the date of the application, namely, 7-12-1998 should be taken into consideration for the purpose of computing the period of limitation even if the period of limitation prescribed under 11B is applicable in this case. The ratio of the decision of this Tribunal in Poulose & Matthen v. Collector of Central Excise - 1989 (43) E.L.T. 424 (T) would support the appellant. The view taken by the Tribuna....