Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Maini Precision Products Pvt. Ltd., ... vs Commissioner Of Ce (A-I) on 27 September, 2017
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Appeal(s) Involved: E/23173, 23714/2014, E/20278 and 20279/2017 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.492/2014 CE dated 27.08.2014 and 364-366/2014 dated 26.06.2014 passed by Commissioner of CE (A-I), BANGALORE Maini Precision Products Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of CE (A-I) Bangalore Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Shri Venkatesan K, Manager For the Appellant Shri P Murthy, AR For the Respondent Date of Hearing: 19.09.2017 Date of Decision: 27.09.2017 CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI M.V. RAVINDRAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER Final Order No. 22278-81/ 2017 Per : M.V. RAVINDRAN These appeals are directed against Order-in-Appeal No.492/2014 CE dated 27.08.2014 and 364-366/2014 dated 26.06.2014.
2. Since all the appeals are raising a common question of law and facts, they are being disposed of by a common order.
3. Heard both sides and perused records.
4. On perusal of records, it transpires that the issue is regarding refund of an amount paid in excess by the appellant. The lower authorities have rejected the said refund claims on the ground that they were hit by limitation.
5. Learned authorized representative for the appellant draws my attention to the facts of the case and submits that they had by mistake debited/paid the amount equal to 10% of the value of the goods cleared for export, under mistaken impression that the said goods are exempted.
6. After noticing such an error in the books of accounts, they applied for the refund of the said amount.
7. The learned representative submits that the law is settled in this case. Recently by the Honble High Court of Madras in the case of Natraj and Venkat Associates as reported in 2010 (17) STR 3 (Mad.), wherein the Honble High Court has stated that when the amount is paid in excess and is not payable, provision of section 11B of CE Act, 1944 are not applicable. He would also submit that the Honble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Kerala State Electricity Board vs. Others in WP(C) No.15508 of 2007, by a judgment dated 20.07.2012 also held in the same way.
8. The learned DR on the other hand, would submit that in all these appeals, the refund claims have been filed belatedly i.e. for the amounts debited in April 2007 to Sept., 2008, the claims have been filed on 25.04.2013, for the amounts paid in April 2009 to March 2010, refund claims were filed on 12.10.2005. He would submit that such belated filing of the appeal could not be considered inadvertent mistake, as appellant is, in an organized sector and is aware of all the Central Excise law and procedures.
9. On careful consideration of the submissions made, I find that the facts are not much in dispute and the dates as stated by the learned DR on filing of the refund claims for the relevant period in question was definitely beyond the period of limitation of one year from the date of payment of duty. The provisions of section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 are very clear that any refund application arising for any reason, the relevant date would be the date of payment of such an amount. The plea of the learned representative for the appellant that these debits are under mistake of law, needs to be rejected that they had paid this amount under the provisions of Rule 6 (3) of Cenvat Credit 2004 holding as the goods cleared for export as exempted.
10. In my view, the decision on identical issue of this Tribunal in the case of Prince Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Final Order No.20821/2016 dated 23.09.2016, Auto Steels; 2014 (312) E.L.T. 768 (Tri.-Del) is in favour of the revenue.
11. I also find that the Honble High Court of Madras in case of Natraj and Venkat Associates, relied upon the authorized representative on appellants has been reversed as reported in 2015 (4) S.T.R. 31 (Mad.).
12. In view of the foregoing, I hold that the impugned orders are correct and legal and does not require any interference.
13. The impugned orders are upheld and the appeals are rejected.
(Order was pronounced in Open Court on 27.09.2017) M.V. RAVINDRAN JUDICIAL MEMBER RB 2