9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 774X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und. 2. Heard Mr.P.R.Renganath, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondents 2 to 4. 3. On 9.2.2010, the appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- "(1) Whether or not the Tribunal erred in not considering the settled legal position that once duty had been paid for the same goods twice, the payment of duty for the second time will be available as refund, as there is no authority under the Central Excise Act, 1994 to collect duty twice for the same goods? (2) Whether or not the Tribunal failed to appreciate that Section 11 B of the Act would only prescribe one year from the date of payment of excess duty as the time limit for filing refund and in this v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3,783/-. Therefore the appellant filed D3 intimation on 16.4.99 with the jurisdictional Central Excise Officer. (d) Thereafter the appellant subjected the fuel injection pumps to a further process of manufacture and supplied them to another company by name M/s TELCO. The sale and supply were made under the invoice dated 11.10.99. After selling the returned goods to a different customer under the invoice dated 11.10.99, the appellant made a refund claim for Rs. 4,63,783/- on 14.10.99. (e) All the three authorities rejected the claim for refund on the basis of Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 contending that the return of goods did not take place within a period of one year from the date of payment of duty. Hence the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (d) in a case where a manufacturer is required to pay a sum, for a certain period, on the basis of the rate fixed by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette in full discharge of his liability for the duty leviable on his production of certain goods, if after the manufacturer has made the payment on the basis of such rate for any period but before the expiry of that period such rate is reduced, the date of such reduction; (e) in the case of a person, other than the manufacturer, the date of purchase of the goods by such person; (ea) in the case of goods, which are exempt from payment of duty by a special order issued under sub-section (2) of section 5A, the date of issue of such order; (eb) in case where duty o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing shown, permit in any particular case, to enable the proper officer to verify the particulars of such goods within forty-eight hours of receipt of the information; (iii)the assessee stores the said goods separately pending their being remade, refined, reconditioned or subjected to any other similar process in the factory unless otherwise permitted by the Commissioner by an order in writing and makes such goods available for inspection by the proper officer when so required; (iv)the amount of refund payable shall in no case be in excess of the duty payable on such goods after being remade, refined, reconditioned or subjected to any other similar process in the factory: Provided further that in relation to the declared excisable good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e for commencement of the period of limitation. In this case, sub-section (1) of Section 11B stipulates a period of limitation of six months only from the relevant date. The expression relevant date is also defined in Explanation (B)(b) to mean the date of entry into the factory for the purpose of remake, refinement or reconditioning. Therefore, it is clear that Section 11B prescribes not only a period of limitation, but also prescribes the date of commencement of the period of limitation. Once the statutory enactment prescribes something of this nature, the rules being a subordinate legislation cannot prescribe anything different from what is prescribed in the Act. In other words, the rules can occupy a field that is left unoccupied by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Works Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Pollachi, 2014 (309) E.L.T. 400, it was contended by Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned standing counsel that the prescription contained in the rules should also be satisfied before a claim for refund is made. We have no quarrel with the above proposition. As we have indicated earlier, if the statute prescribes certain conditions, the additional conditions prescribed in the rules which do not encroach upon the prescription contained in the statute can be enforced. For instance, there are certain other obligations imposed under Rule 173L, which is left unoccupied by the statutory prescription under Section 11B. There is no difficulty in enforcing those provisions. But the only difficulty is with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
