9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1223X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... during the year 2002 and 2003 the appellant had paid excise duty by utilizing Cenvat credit, which was not permitted due to default in monthly payment. The case was already made out by the department for demand of duty in cash(PLA) instead of payment made by debiting RG 23A Part II. In the matter of this case, as per Tribunal's order dated 28/2/2013, appellant had paid duty through PLA. The matter was traveled up to Hon'ble High Court on the issue of order withdrawing the facility of paying duty on fortnightly basis and assessee was directed to pay the duty on each consignment basis from PLA. The Hon'ble High court vide its order dated 29/3/2012 upheld the Order of the Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t under any circumstances law does not permit duty to be charged twice on the same product therefore excess paid amount is liable to be refunded. He submits that any amount paid over and above the actual duty liability should be considered as deposit and has to be refunded. He placed reliance on the following judgments: (a) GAURI PLASTICULTURE (P) LTD.Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE [2006 (202) E.L.T. 199 (Tri. - LB)] (b) COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH Versus ANSYSCO [2014 (314) E.L.T. 242 (Tri. - Del.)] (c) DOABA ALCO CHEMICALS Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., JALANDHAR[2010 (250) E.L.T. 81 (Tri. - Del.) ] (e) SREE KA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bsp; Section 11B the refund should have been filed within one year from the date of payment of duty therefore refund claim filed by the appellant is clearly time bar, therefore the refund was correctly held as time bar by the both the lower authorities. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. 6. I find that refund claim was rejected grossly on the ground of time bar, for the reason that duty of Rs. 5,80,000/-, for which refund claim was filed was paid in 2002-03, however refund claim was filed in 2013. Accordingly both the lower authorities held refund claim as time bar. I find that litigation was going on the issue w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled by the appellant within stipulated time. However both the lower authorities have rejected the claim only on the ground of time bar. I find that there is no dispute that in respect of clearances of the same goods, appellant had paid excise duty twice. In the proceedings before the High court it was settled that appellant required to pay duty from PLA, the appellant indeed paid the duty from the PLA, the amount of duty paid by d`ebiting Cenvat credit is refundable to the appellant. Therefore the appellant is prima facie entitle for the refund. As per my above discussion, I remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority with the observation that refund claim is not time bar. The adjudicating a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
