Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2014 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (12) TMI 153 - CESTAT NEW DELHIDenial of Refund claim - Bar of limitation - manufacture of sugar - free sale of sugar and levy sugar - rebate claim claiming that the excess production during the period from 1-5-1982 to September 1982 - Notification No. 132/82-C.E., dated 21-4-1982 issued under Rule 8(1) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Held that:- As per the scheme of the notification, towards the end of the sugar season, the sugar manufacturer determined his excess production and submitted his rebate claim to the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner who was required to sanction 60% of the rebate claim on presentation of the rebate claim and balance 40% after pre-audit. This rebate was being given as credit entry in the PLA and this PLA credit could be used for payment of duty on the clearances of the sugar. In this case, the rebate claim had been presented in September 1982 and 60% of the amount was sanctioned in June 1983. Subsequently while considering the payment of balance amount, the Assistant Commissioner, after issue of show cause notice, rejected the rebate claim as time barred. One of such exception is the case where the incidence of duty whose refund is sought has been borne by the assessee claiming the refund. The rebate claim in respect of excess production of sugar during lean season in terms of Notification No. 132/82-C.E. is not mentioned among the exceptions in the proviso to Section 11B(2). In this case it is not in dispute that the appellant while claiming this rebate under the Notification No. 132/82-C.E. recovered duty at the normal rate from their customers and therefore in terms of the provisions of Section 11B, as the same stood at the time of sanctioning the rebate, they would not be eligible for the same unless they prove that they had borne the incidence of duty whose refund/rebate is being claimed by them. But in this case, it is not disputed that the incidence of duty whose refund is claimed has been passed on. In view of the non obstante provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 11B, all refund claims made during the period w.e.f. 20th September 1991 would be subject to the principle of unjust enrichment incorporated in sub-section (2) of Section 11B. no infirmity in the impugned order - Decided against the assessee.
|