Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2022 (6) TMI 612

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of Central Excise Act 1944. The bare perusal makes it clear that the Section applies for the refund of such amount which is an amount of duty or tax. As already observed amount in question is in the form of deposit. The issue is no more res-integra as has already been decided by this Tribunal in the case of R.S. CHEMICALS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NOIDA [ 2017 (4) TMI 884 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD] where it was held that the amount excess paid in December, 2003 is in the nature of Revenue deposit. Further, there is no limitation for refund of Revenue deposit - the refund claim is not barred by limitation. Even the decision of Hon ble Apex Court in MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [ 1996 (12) TMI 50 - SUPREME COU .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ng realized that the excess payment was made in advertently that an application dated 6th August, 2018 was filed by the appellant seeking refund of the said amount. However, a deficiency memo was initially issued on 12th November, 2018. Subsequently, on 27th December, 2018 the requisite documents were duly submitted by the appellant. However, the original adjudicating authority vide order No.26/2020-21 dated 24.06.2021 has rejected the claim as the same has been filed after one year of the deposit invoking section 11 B of Central Excise Act, 1944. Said order has been upheld vide the order under challenge. Still being aggrieved the appellant is before this Tribunal. 3. I have heard Mr. N.K. Gupta, ld. Counsel for the appellant and Ms.Tama .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of appellant that the amount of Rs.2,83,505/- is an excess payment than the amount of tax to be deposited by the appellant. Consequently, it becomes clear that the aforesaid amount is not the amount as would have been authorized by law. The adjudicating authority while denying the refund of said excess amount has invoked section 11B of Central Excise Act 1944. Said Section 11B reads as follows:- Section 11B. Claim for refund of duty and interest, if any, paid on such duty - (1) Any person claiming refund of any duty of excise and interest, if any, paid on such duty may make an application for refund of such duty and interest, if any, paid on such duty to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Centr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates