JUDGMENT

A.K. Sikri, J.

1. In the present appeal filed by the Assessee, it is seeking refund of duty which was initially paid by M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'BPCL'). According to the Appellant, this duty was paid by it to the BPCL on purchase of Naphtha from BPCL. The period involved is 25.09.1996 to 16.10.1996. Under Rule 192 of the Central Excise Rules 1944, Naphtha can be procured without payment of duty as provided under Notification No. 75/84-CE dated 01.03.1984 as well as Notification No.8/96-CE dated 23.07.1996, in case the purchaser is in possession of CT-2 certificate and an L6 licence issued by the Departmental authorities. The Appellant did not have this certificate at the material time and that is why duty was paid. However, the Appellant was also simultaneously requesting the authorities to issue CT-2 certificate to enable it to procure Naphtha without payment of duty. This certificate was initially refused by the Departmental authorities vide Order-in-Original dated 08.07.1997 passed by Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Sitapur Division. Against that order, the Appellant had preferred the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) in which the Appellant succeeded as the said appeal was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 30.10.1998, thereby granting permission to the Appellant to procure Naphtha without payment of duty.

2. It is not in dispute that, thereafter, armed with the said certificate the Appellant has been purchasing Naphtha without payment of duty. However, for the period from 25.09.1996 to 16.10.1996, which is the subject matter of the present appeal, since the Appellant had paid the duty to BPCL and BPCL had paid the same, in turn, to the Respondent-authorities, the Appellant sought refund of the said duty. This refund application was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Durgapur-I Division vide Order-in-Original dated 19.01.2000 on two grounds. The first reason given by the authority was that since it is the manufacturer which had paid the duty to the authorities, the Appellant had no locus standi to claim the refund. The second reason given was that the application filed Under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') was not preferred within six months and therefore, was time barred.

3. The Appellant filed the appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) challenging the aforesaid order. This appeal was, however, dismissed on 14.08.2001. Further appeal was preferred before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as 'CESTAT'). Again unsuccessfully, as by the impugned orders dated 20.11.2003, the appeal of the Appellant has been dismissed.

4. The CESTAT has not decided the issue of limitation and authoritatively dismissed the appeal giving two other reasons. First reason is the same as which was the basis of the dismissal of appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) as well, namely, the Appellant lacked locus standi to file the refund claim. Another reason which had persuaded the CESTAT to dismiss the appeal was that the refund claim was preferred before a wrong authority.

5. Insofar as dismissing the application on the ground that the Appellant did not have locus standi, we find that view taken by the authorities below is clearly erroneous in law. Section 11B of the Act which contains the provision for making a claim for refund of duty uses the expression "any person" who is eligible to claim refund of the duty. The relevant portion of Section 11B reads as under:

Section 11B. Claim for refund of duty.-(1) Any person claiming refund of any duty of excise may make an application for refund of such duty to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise before the expiry of six months from the relevant date in such form and manner as may be prescribed and the application shall be accompanied by such documentary or other evidence (including the