TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 786X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... D. VERSUS COMMR. OF C. EX. S.T., PUNE-I [ 2018 (3) TMI 1857 - CESTAT MUMBAI] and decision in the case of R.S. CHEMICALS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NOIDA [ 2017 (4) TMI 884 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD] , time bar of Section 11B(1) of the Central Excise Act is not applicable to advance/deposits, wrong remittance of tax not payable and other payments which are not in the nature of taxes or duties. The other ground for rejection of the claim was that the appellant has not given intimation of advance deposit of ₹ 15,00,000/- as required under Rule 6(1A) of Service Tax Rules, 1994. This issue has been considered by various Benches of the Tribunal and has been consistently held to be a procedural formality and merely non-observance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led on 10.01.2018. After following the due process, the Deputy Commissioner while confirming the proposals in the SCN held as under: a) concluded that an amount of ₹ 15,00,000 paid vide two challans No. 2759 dated 05.07.2016 and 0652 dated 06.08.2016 is liable for rejection as time-barred in terms of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as the prescribed intimation has not been given. b) rejected the submission that the impugned deposits were utilized in the month of April 2017 and the refund claim of ₹ 3,79,85,793/- is only from the advance payments in the month of June 2017, and hence the refund claim is not time-barred. c) rejected the contention that claim of refund of balance under existing law (i.e. service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und of balance i.e. service tax paid under Finance Act 1994 is not subject to time limit in sub-section (1) of Section 11B of Central Excise Act and in view of Section 142 (5) of the CGST Act 2017. He further submitted that it is well settled that time-bar under Section 11B(1) of the Central Excise Act is not applicable to advance/deposits, wrong remittance of tax not payable, other payments which are in the nature of taxes or duties etc. For this submission, he relied upon the decision in the following cases: Fluid Controls Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE ST, Pune-I, 2018 (364) ELT 1041 (Tri.-Mumbai). R.S. Chemicals Vs CCE, Noida, 2017 (353) ELT 247 (Tri. All.) 4.1. It is his further submission that it is settled position of law that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isposed of in accordance with the provisions of existing law and any amount eventually accruing to him shall be paid in cash, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained under the provisions of existing law other than the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. (emphasis supplied by us) 4.3. He further submitted that Clause (B) of proviso to Section 11B(2) provides for cash refund of balance in account current by providing as follows: unspent advance deposits lying in balance in the applicant s account current maintained with the Principal Commissioner of Central Excise or Commissioner of Central Excise; 5. On the other hand, learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
