TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 571X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... date. A Statutory Authority cannot traverse beyond the confines of law and cannot grant relief by by-passing the bar of limitation. The refund claim filed after the expiry of period of limitation is not maintainable and this statutory time limit prescribed under Section 11B is not questionable by any Authority. Therefore in view of the clear-cut position of law, the refund claim filed by the appellant is beyond the period of limitation. Further the appellant has also failed to establish that the said burden of duty has not been passed on to its buyer. Simply producing a copy of the ledger would in my opinion will not be sufficient to discharge the onus on the appellant. The learned Commissioner(Appeals) has rightly held that the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed from 16% to 14% besides education cess @ 2% plus 1% on duty amount and the said reduction was caused by Finance Act 2008 which came into force from 01.03.2008. In view of the changes in the Finance Act, the company was liable to discharge duty with education cess at 14.42% as against payment of 16.48% which resulted in excess payment of duty of ₹ 17,02,400/-. Hence the refund claim under Section 11B of the Act was filed with the jurisdictional Excise Officers but the same was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise vide his order dated 6.5.2010 and thereafter the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) Bangalore who upheld the order-in-original by dismissing the appeal of the appellant and hence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -sheet and annual reports showing the disputed refund amount as receivable from the company are conclusive proof that the duty burden has not been passed on to the buyers. On the other hand, the learned AR submitted that the refund claim filed by the appellant is hopelessly time-barred and therefore both the authorities below have rightly rejected the refund claim filed by the appellant. He submitted that as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act 1944 only a period of one year has been prescribed for claiming refund of duty and interest if any paid on such duty and this period of one year has to be reckoned from the relevant date which in this case is the date of payment of duty. In this case, the duty was paid in December 2006 and March ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lation to which such refund is claimed was collected from, or paid by, him and the incidence of such [duty and interest, if any, paid on such duty] had not been passed on by him to any other person : In this case, it is a fact that the duty was paid in December 2006 and March 2007 but the goods were removed in March 2008 and the refund application was filed on 5.1.2010 which means that the refund application in the present case has been filed after more than three years which is beyond the period of limitation as per Section 11B enumerated above. It has been held in the case of Miles India Ltd Vs ACC [1987 (30)ELT 641 (SC)] that the provisions of time limit are mandatory and the excise/customs authorities cannot grant refund which is fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
