2018 (7) TMI 995 – CESTAT ALLAHABAD – TMI – Refund of Interest – Time limitation – discharge of duty in terms of Section 3A of Central Excise Act, 1944 under Compounded Levy Scheme – whether the same would be hit by the bar of limitation or not? – Held that:- The present appellant did not keep the matter alive by filing any appeal against the confirmation of interest or deposit of the same. All the refunds, have to be claimed in terms of Section 11 B of the Act, which prescribed a period within which such claims should have been filed by an assessee, subject to some exceptions. Admittedly in the present matter, the appellant’s case is not covered by such exceptions like payment of duty under protest or the assessments being provisionally.
–
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Porcelain Electrical Mfg. [1994 (11) TMI 145 – SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] has held that the authorities working under the Act are bound by the provisions of the Act and are required to decide the disputes i
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
on record appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Pan Masala and Chewing Tobacco and were discharging their duty liability in terms of Section 3A of Central Excise Act, 1944 under Compounded Levy Scheme, in terms of Pan Masala Packing Machine (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008 and Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010. During the period of dispute i.e., March 2011 to July, 2013 and May, 2013 to November, 2013, the appellant discharged their duty obligation by 5th of the following month in which clearances have taken place. Such duty was discharged along with payment of interest from the 5th of the same month upto the date of payment of duty. 3. It is also seen that an identical situation arrive in the appellant s Delhi Unit where the appellant claimed that no interest liability would arise against them. In such a situation the matter travelled upto Tribunal, who vide their Fin
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
e Revenue cannot be allowed to retain the said illegal levy, without any authority of law and should have refunded the same to the assessee, without raising the issue of limitation. 6. I find no merit in the above pleas of the appellant. Admittedly the refunds have not arisen as a consequence of passing the orders by the Tribunal, in the appellant s own unit which is located in Kanpur. It has to be seen that the present appeals are by the appellant in respect of their Kanpur Unit wherein no litigation was going on in respect of payment of interest. The appellant, after paying the interest, kept quite and did not challenge the same before any Higher Appellate Forum. The only challenge was by their Delhi Unit and the orders passed by the Tribunal were in respect of Delhi Unit only vide which the interest was held, has not payable. No doubt the Tribunal declared the law, which has to be held as law in rem and has to be applied and followed in respect of other assessees , similarly situate
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
he Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Porcelain Electrical Mfg. reported at 1998 (98) ELT 583 (S.C.) has held that the authorities working under the Act are bound by the provisions of the Act and are required to decide the disputes in terms of the law provided in the said Act. The decision of various High Courts allowing the refunds even beyond the limitation period on by applying the general law of limitation are in exercise of their extraordinary jurisdiction, which is not available to the Revenue Authorities. Tribunal being creature of the Act, is bound by the provisions of the Act and even though the appellant s refund claim of interest is admissible on merits, in view of law declared by the Tribunal in the above referred decisions, the same having been filed after the normal period of one year provided under Section 11 B, is hit by the bar of limitation. Accordingly, I am of the view that the Lower Authorities have rightly rejected the same. 8. In view of the foregoing discussio
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =