TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for consideration of the present dispute can be itemized either under clauses (eb) or (f) of the above reproduced explanation. In this case, it is an admitted fact on record that the appellants did not resort to the provisional assessment for payment of duty in question on removal of final product from the factory. Thus, the case of the appellants will not be governed under clause (eb) above for consideration of the relevant date differently - Admittedly, in this case, the appellants had filed the refund applications beyond the period of one year from the date of payment of duty attributable to exportation of goods. Since the provisions of Section 11B ibid have not prescribed any specific relevant date for consideration of filing of refund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty, by executing the letter of undertaking. The proof of export in respect of the goods were not received within a period of six months and accordingly, the appellants had paid central excise duty involved on the goods cleared for export. Subsequently, the proof of export was received by them in the year 2016 and was submitted before the jurisdictional central excise office. Thereafter, the appellants had filed the refund applications, claiming refund of central excise duty paid on the exported goods. The applications were filed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Vide order dated 18.01.2017, the original authority had rejected the refund applications on the ground that the same were filed beyond the period of one year from t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellants into the Government exchequer should be considered as deposit of amount and not as payment of duty and thus, the time limit prescribed under Section 11B would not be applicable. 4. On the other hand, the learned AR appearing for Revenue reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order and further submitted that since the appellants had paid the duty amount voluntarily and filed the refund applications beyond the prescribed period of one year from the date of such payment, the claim applications are clearly barred by limitation of time. She further submitted that since the refund applications were filed by the appellants and considered by the authorities under the provisions of Section 11B ibid, the ti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ier, or (iii) if the goods are exported by post, the date of despatch of goods by the Post Office concerned to a place outside India; (b) in the case of goods returned for being remade, refined, reconditioned, or subjected to any other similar process, in any factory, the date of entry into the factory for the purposes aforesaid; (c) in the case of goods to which banderols are required to be affixed if removed for home consumption but not so required when exported outside India, if returned to a factory after having been removed from such factory for export out of India, the date of entry into the factory; (d) in a case where a manufacturer is required to pay a sum, for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sional assessment for payment of duty in question on removal of final product from the factory. Thus, the case of the appellants will not be governed under clause (eb) above for consideration of the relevant date differently. On the contrary, the case of the appellant squarely falls under purview of clause (f), whereunder the relevant date should be construed as the date of payment of duty . Admittedly, in this case, the appellants had filed the refund applications beyond the period of one year from the date of payment of duty attributable to exportation of goods. Since the provisions of Section 11B ibid have not prescribed any specific relevant date for consideration of filing of refund claim after obtaining the proof of export of goods, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in case of claim of refund filed under the central excise statute. The Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Miles India Ltd. (supra), in a Customs refund case have also ruled that the authorities acting under the Act are justified in disallowing the claim for refund, as they were bound by the period of limitation provided under the statute. Though, the said judgment was delivered by the Hon ble Apex Court in context with the Customs statute, but the ratio of the said judgment is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case inasmuch as both the Customs as well as Central Excise statutes prescribe the time limit for filing of refund application. 9. In view of the above discussions and analysis, I do not find any infirmi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
