Marketing Communication and Advertising Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (CESTAT Bangalore)
Section 11B prescribes time limitation for claiming refund of duty & interest, if any, paid. In the Order-in-Original, even though Appellate Authority observed that the appellant filed a refund claim of Rs. 20,38,157/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Thirty Eight Thousand One Hundred and Fifty Seven only) which was the advance cash balance lying in their PLA as on 30/06/2017, but later, in the same order, has proceeded tangentially, to hold that there were lack of supporting documents, to hold that the appellant’s claim was for refund of ‘Advance Cash Payment’ and has tried to justify the same, finally though, rejection has been made on the ground that refund claim was made beyond one year’s time limitation under Section 11B ibid. When the ‘deposit’ in PLA is not disputed, I am of the view that the authorities cannot treat the same, just to reject a valid and rightful claim, as anything other than deposit. Though an attempt is made to give a different colour to the ‘deposit’, but justification is not forthcoming, with due support of any valid documents, anywhere in the orders of lower authority. My above view is supported by the Final Order of Mumbai Bench of CESTAT in the case of Fluid Controls Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune – 2018 (364) E.L.T. 1041 (Tri.-Mumbai).
4. In view of the above discussions, I am of the clear view that the appellant’s claim for refund of their ‘deposit’ lying unutilized in their PLA is perfectly valid, which being not a duty, time limit prescribed under Section 11B could not apply. The denial of the same is held unsustainable being contrary to the settled position of law.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT BANGALORE ORDER
Refund application claiming refund of a deposit lying in Personal Ledger Account (PLA), unutilized, was made on 14/12/2018 by the appellant. After proposing to reject the above refund claim vide show-cause notice dated 29/01/2019, the rejection was confirmed vide adjudication order dated 31/03/2019 on the ground of time-bar. The said rejection came to be upheld, in first appeal, by the First Appellate Authority vide impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 23/2020-21 CT dated 23/06/2020, against which this appeal is filed by the appellant.
2. Heard Shri Girish, the learned CA and Shri P. Rama Holla, the learned DR for the Revenue, I have considered the rival contentions and have also gone through the documents and decisions relied on.
3. I find, in the first place, that the Revenue has nowhere disputed appellant’s claim as regards its claim that the refund it sought was nothing but the one lying in their PLA, unutilized, which was to be utilized by them towards future duty, at the time of clearance of their final product. It is also not in dispute that with the introduction of GST from 01/07/2017, the appellant’s deposit in their PLA remained unutilized and hence, the refund of the same was rightly claimed. When an amount is deposited to PLA, to be appropriated towards duty which may fall due in future and there having no appropriation, the same does not pass on to the Government unless the goods are cleared, and the duty is levied, such money lying deposited in PLA cannot be utilized. With the introduction of GST from 01/07/2017, such utilization was ruled out and hence, what the appellant sought was its own money.
3.1. Further, Section 11B prescribes time limitation for claiming refund of duty & interest, if any, paid. In the Order-in-Original, even though Appellate Authority observed that the appellant filed a refund claim of Rs. 20,38,157/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Thirty Eight Thousand One Hundred and Fifty Seven only) which was the advance cash balance lying in their PLA as on 30/06/2017, but later, in the same order, has proceeded tangentially, to hold that there were lack of supporting documents, to hold that the appellant’s claim was for refund of ‘Advance Cash Payment’ and has tried to justify the same, finally though, rejection has been made on the ground that refund claim was made beyond one year’s time limitation under Section 11B ibid. When the ‘deposit’ in PLA is not disputed, I am of the view that the authorities cannot treat the same, just to reject a valid and rightful claim, as anything other than deposit. Though an attempt is made to give a different colour to the ‘deposit’, but justification is not forthcoming, with due support of any valid documents, anywhere in the orders of lower authority. My above view is supported by the Final Order of Mumbai Bench of CESTAT in the case of Fluid Controls Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune – 2018 (364) E.L.T. 1041 (Tri.-Mumbai).
4. In view of the above discussions, I am of the clear view that the appellant’s claim for refund of their ‘deposit’ lying unutilized in their PLA is perfectly valid, which being not a duty, time limit prescribed under Section 11B could not apply. The denial of the same is held unsustainable being contrary to the settled position of law.
5. Resultantly, impugned order & rejection thereby is set aside, Appeal is allowed with consequential benefits, if any as per law.
(Order pronounced in the Open Court on 22/03/2022)
