TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 657X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce of said PLA account as on 30th June, 2017 was ₹ 2,02,162/-. Admittedly as on 30.07.2017 the duty liability of appellant for the impugned period was discharged and the aforesaid amount was appellant s money to be adjusted against any duty liability arising after 01.07.2017 - the amount in question was not at all the amount of duty or interest it was rather appellants own amount which either could be utilized by him while discharging his duty liability else the appellant was entitled to get the refund thereof. It is also the fact that on 1st July, 2017 the new Act of Goods and Service Tax Act (GST) was rolled down. Section 142 (3) of the said Act permits the refund of any amount other than duty, tax, interest or Cenvat Credit has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t balance as on 30th June, 2017. The rejection was initially confirmed vide Order-in-Original No.01/2019 dated 23.01.2019. Appeal thereof has been rejected by the Order under challenge. 2. I have heard Shri Sanjay Kumar, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri P. Juneja, learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant has mentioned that the Adjudicating Authority below has erred in considering the amount in question to be a duty and thus Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 (CEA) has wrongly been invoked for rejecting the claim on the issue of limitation mentioned in said Section 11B. It is submitted that it was appellant's own money deposited in his PLA Account to which he is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant for the impugned period was discharged and the aforesaid amount was appellant s money to be adjusted against any duty liability arising after 01.07.2017. 1st July 2017 has been the date of transition into GST. The aforesaid amount remained unutilized by the appellant. The said closing balance has also been duly reflected in the ER-1 Return filed by the appellant. These admissions makes it clear that the amount in question was not at all the amount of duty or interest it was rather appellants own amount which either could be utilized by him while discharging his duty liability else the appellant was entitled to get the refund thereof. 6. There is a distinction between the amount appropriated towards duty and amount deposited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibed under Section 11B applies to the refund of duty amount. Inasmuch as the lower authorities themselves observed that the amount in question is duty waiting to be debited , this clearly shows that the same is not duty, in which case, the provision of Section 11B would not apply. Otherwise also I find that the PLA deposits are mere deposit for the purposes of their utilisation in the future and if the same is not in a position to be utilised, the depositor has to be held as owner of the said amount which is required to be refunded to them, in the absence of any limitation prescribed under the Act for such refund. 8. Hon ble High Court of Punjab e Haryana in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. CCE reported as 2010 (256) EL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
