9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 921X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equipment, machinery and parts thereof to M/s Oil and Natural Gas Commission and to M/s Oil India Limited under the International Competitive Bidding, on payment of appropriate Central Excise Duty, under the cover of invoices. 3. The appellant made a refund claim of Rs. 28,71,563/- on 09.05.2014 in the Central Excise Division, Dehradun, and this application was made with the Director General Foreign Trade (DGFT, Dehradun) on 03.10.2013. 4. Under section 8.3 (c) of the Foreign Trade Policy, there was an exemption from terminal excise duty for domestic manufacturing and supply of goods under the International Competitive Bidding (deemed exports scheme). The appellant under the Foreign Trade Policy, first charged the Central Excise Duty in the invoices, while making the sale under the Foreign Trade Policy, while making the sale in the invoices, the connotation was made "excise duty to be claimed under deemed exports scheme". 5. The case of the appellant is that effectively no Central Excise Duty had been claimed from M/s ONGC and Oil India Limited, and in this backdrop, the cenvat credit could not be availed by the purchaser. 6. As per the Central Excise Notification No. 12/2012-C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods cleared under deemed export under ICB, Annexure no.4, to the appeal. 10. The appellant was informed by DGFT that they were now required to file the refund claims to the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Dehradun Division. Thereafter, the appellant made a refund claims to the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Dehradun, as per Annexure no. 5, to the appeal dated 23.04.2014, 07.07.2014 and 15.07.2014. 11. The Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Dehradun, thereafter issued a show-cause notice dated 07.08.2014, proposing to deny the refund claim of Rs. 28,71,563/- vide Annexure no.6, and while issuing a show cause notice, the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Dehradun, observed that the refund was time barred under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the appellant had supplied goods against the project authority certificate through ICB, and under Condition No. 29 (a) (b) (c), of the Notification No. 21/2002, custom dated 01.03.2002 read with Condition No.41 of Notification No. 12/2012 custom, dated 17.03.2012, the certificate was required to be given by the Authorized Officer of the Director General of Hydro Carbons (Ministry of Petroleum and Natu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 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 Central Excise before the expiry of one year from the relevant date in such form and manner as may be prescribed and the application shall be accompanied by such documentary or other evidence (including the documents referred to in Section 12A) as the applicant may furnish to establish that the amount of duty of excise and interest, if any, paid on such duty in relation 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 in relation 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: Provided that where an application for refund has been made before the commencement of the Central Excises and Customs Laws (Amendment) Act, 1991, such application shall be deemed to have been made under thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as a consequence of judgment, decree, order or direction of appellate authority, Appellate Tribunal or any court, the date of such judgment, decree, order or direction; (f) in any other case, the date of payment of duty." 16. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that in the present case, the refund applications, which were filed before the expiry of one year from the relevant date have been allowed with interest. However, the only question for consideration in the present appeal is whether after the Notification dated 18.04.2013, which took away the powers of the DGFT, to grant the refund, the time taken before that authority where they could not pass any order of the refund can be taken out a limitation of one year where an appropriate application was made before the Competent Authority, after expiry of one year. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of "M.P. Steel Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise" reported in 2017 (50) STR 205 SC, where the Supreme Court had examined that whether the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, would apply to the Tribunals, Quasi-Judicial Authority other than the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reduced. It would, therefore, be clear that 31-10-2000 is the trigger point which entitled the appellant to claim the refund. In the absence of any such notification there was no cause of action in favour of the appellant to make any such application for refund. As a natural consequence, therefore, the period of limitation has to be reckoned from 31-10-2000. It is not in dispute that application for refund was filed on 19-6-2001 and the period of limitation at that time was one year. The applications for refund were, therefore, clearly within limitation. We do not understand the logic or rationale behind the order of the CESTAT counting the period from July, 1999 for which the excess amount was sought to be refunded. The order of the CESTAT is, therefore, palpably wrong and erroneous in law." 19. The ratio of the judgments are applicable in the facts of the present case, in the present case, after the Notification dated 18.04.2013, the DGFT, had no powers to grant the refund and the time taken before that authority could not be made basis to reject the application for refund on the ground of expiry of the limitation. The parties are not in dispute that prior to the Notification da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
