Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 1171 - AT - Central ExciseRefund of central excise duty paid on the exported goods - time limitation - Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - appellants did not deposit the duty amount under protest and not opted for the provisional assessment - HELD THAT:- Section 11B ibid provides the mechanism for filing of refund application and consideration of the same by the statutory authorities. The statutory provision inter alia, mandates that the refund application should be filed by the claimant before the expiry of one year from the relevant date. As per the explanation contained in Section 11B ibid, the term ‘relevant date’ 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 claim after obtaining the proof of export of goods, the relevant date for such purpose should be governed only under clause (f) contained in the explanation appended to Section 11B ibid. In this case, the appellants had deposited the central excise duty on removal of excisable goods from the factory premises. Such amount of duty was deposited into the Central Government account under proper accounting code. Thus, under the circumstances, it cannot be pleaded that the duty amount deposited by them should be construed as ‘mere deposit’ in the hands of the Government and for grant of the said refund amount, the provisions of Section 11B ibid would not be applicable. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
|