Case Law Details
WMW Metal Fabrics Limited Vs Commissioner, CGST (CESTAT Delhi)
There is a distinction between the amount appropriated towards duty and amount deposited for payment of a duty. In a former case duty which has been levied and paid subsequently becomes the property of the Government and no person would be entitled to get it back unless there is a provision of law to enable that person to get the duty already appropriated back from the State or the Government. In the latter case, however, when an amount has been deposited to PLA Account to be appropriated towards duty which may fall due in future and there having no appropriation, the property in money does not pass to the Government unless the goods are cleared and the duty is levied and such money lying deposited in PLA cannot be utilized. It shall be the money of assessee.
It is also the fact that on 1st July, 2017 the new Act of Goods and Service Tax Act (GST) was rolled down. Section 142 (3) of the said Act permits the refund of any amount other than duty, tax, interest or Cenvat Credit has to be paid to the assessee in cash. Accordingly, I hold that the amount in question was appellant’s own money and he was fully entitled to get the refund of the same that too in cash. This amount cannot been made subjected to any other appropriation. Nor the time limit under Section 11B of CEA can be invoked when such money is sought to be refunded.
Hon’ble High Court of Punjab e & Haryana in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. CCE reported as 2010 (256) ELT 232 (P & H) has held that when there was no duty liability of the appellant but some amounts stands deposited by him, the same has to be refunded back to the appellant without raising any issue of limitation. It was specifically held therein that state cannot enrich itself unjustly when no duty was liable to be paid by the appellant.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT DELHI ORDER
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
