Del. HC: Obtaining of Voice Samples of Accused Must be in Compliance with Telegraph Act  ||  P&H HC: Peaceful Protest is Not a Penal Offence Under Section 188 IPC  ||  All HC: AO Must Consider Form 10 u/s 17 Supplied After Limitation But Before Assessment is Completed  ||  Ker. HC Issues Guidelines on Handling Digital Evidence Containing Sexually Explicit Materials  ||  Del. HC: Cyber Crimes Dissuade Aspirations of Advanced 'Digital Bharat'  ||  Del. HC: Suspension of Entity Can’t be Continued Indefinitely  ||  Del. HC: Woman Can be 'Karta' of HUF  ||  SC: Court Can’t Impose Bail Condition that Husband Must Resume Conjugal Life with Wife  ||  SC Takes Suo Moto Cognizance of Cal. HC Judgment that Adviced Adolescents on Sexual Behavior  ||  JKL HC: Court Can’t be Guided by Personal Law While Deciding Apportionment of Compensation    

Kec International Ltd vs. Commissioner, Central Excise and CGST, Jaipur - (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) (16 Mar 2021)

An assessee is bound within four corners of the statute and the period of limitation prescribed in Excise Act and Rules in refund claims before the Departmental Authorities



The Applicant was engaged in manufacturing of "Galvanized Transmission & Communication Tower Parts". The Appellant filed a refund claim amounting to Rs.3,10,312 before the Competent Excise Authority on account of the said amount being shown as the closing balance in their current account as on 30 June, 2017. It was mentioned that, the said amount of refund was originally deposited in their PLA Account for payment of duty and balance thereof was shown in ER-I Return for the month of June, 2017. The Government, however, observing that since the refund has been claimed on 30 July, 2018 for the cash balance of 30 June 2016, the same appears to be hit by limitation of period of one year. Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice was served upon the Appellant proposing the rejection thereof. The said proposal was initially confirmed by Order-in-Original. The appeal thereof has been rejected vide the impugned order under challenge. Being aggrieved the appellant is before this Tribunal.

The amount as was prayed to be refunded is admittedly an amount other than the duty or interest which is the subject matter of refund under Section 11 B of Central Excise Act, 1944. Keeping in view the same, Section 11B of Act, 1944 should not have been made applicable upon the impugned refund. Simultaneously, other than Section 11B of Act, 1944, there is no provision under which the Department can refund the impugned amount or which permits the withdrawal of deposits as the one in the present case. The impugned Show Cause Notice was issued objecting the application of refund to be barred by limitation.

In the given circumstances, there was no other option with the Adjudicating Authority below to follow the mandate of Section 11B (1) of Act, 1944. It has already been a settled law that, in making claims for refund before the Departmental Authorities, an assessee is bound within four corners of the statute and the period of limitation prescribed in Excise Act and Rules framed there-under must be adhered to. Accordingly, there is no infirmity in the order under challenge. Appeal dismissed.


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2023 - All Rights Reserved