Case Law Details
Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax (CESTAT Chandigarh)
PLA (Personal Ledger Accounts) deposits are mere deposits for the purpose of their utilisation in the future and the same is not duty, in which case the provision of section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 would not apply and if the same is not in a position to utilise, the depositor has to be held as the owner of the said amount which is required to be refunded to them in the absence of any limitation prescribed under the Act for such refunds.
Even the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh which is the jurisdictional High Court, in the matter of Indian Oil Co-operation Ltd. V/s. CCE, New Delhi, 2010 (256) ELT 232 (P&H) while deciding the issue about applying the limitation prescribed u/s. 11B ibid on un-utilised PLA balance has held that the rejection of application of claimant by the Central Excise Authorities on the ground that the application has been filed beyond the prescribed period from the date of crediting the amount in their personal ledger accounts cannot be sustained because the State cannot enrich itself unjustly when no duty was liable to be paid by the petitioner therein.
CESTAT held that appellant are eligible for the refund claim of unutilized balance lying in their PLA (Personal Ledger Accounts) and the appeal is accordingly allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT CHANDIGARH ORDER
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
