Case Law Details
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
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
