Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14 Attention of this Court is also invited to the proviso to Section 11B (2) to steer clear the stand of the respondents. Learned counsel urges us to take a holistic view of the matter and hold the petitioner entitled to interest under Section 11BB by declaring „unspent amount in PLA‟ as duty of excise for the purpose of refund under Section 11B of the Act. Submissions on behalf of the respondents:

15 Per contra, Mr. Jagpaul Singh, the learned counsel for the Revenue argues that the refund envisaged under Notification No. 56/2002-CE is not on account of any excess payment of duty by the manufacturer/assessee but is basically designed to operationalise exemption. He submits that unspent amount lying in Current Account (PLA) is an amount belonging to the manufacturer, kept in PLA only to pay the excise duty as and when due without any hassles. He vehemently urges this Court to draw a distinction between „the amount for payment of duty‟ and „the amount of duty actually paid‟ on the removal of excise goods from manufacturing unit. He submits that such amount lying in the PLA belongs to the manufacturer whise as „duty of excise‟ goes to the coffers of the Excise Department. He concludes his arguments by reiterating his submission that refund claim in respect of unspent amount in PLA was not covered under Section 11B and Section 11BB of the Act and, thisefore, respondent No.2 was perfectly justified to reject the claim of the petitioner for interest under Section 11BB of the Act. He places reliance on the following judgments:-