Back
CUSTOM EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BOMBAY
Krishna Kumar, J.
Navdeep Packaging Industries -Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-II -Respondent
Final Order No. A/2138/WZB/2006-CIV/SMB Appeal No. E/3606/2004-Mum., 2138 of 2006, 3606 of 2004
Decided On : 20-12-2006
M.A. Patel,Pramod Kumar
Per Krishna Kumar : Heard both sides.
2. The issue involved is whether the refund of unspent PLA balance is covered under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in his order has considered the provisions of Rule 9 (1A) read with Rule 173G (1A) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which provides for withdrawal of amount from PLA by the Commissioner and the said power of Commissioner has been delegated to Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise. The contentions of the ld. Consultant for the appellant is that Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 applies for refund of duty. This is not disputed by the Commissioner (Appeals). However, referring to clause (b) of the proviso to Sub-Section (2) of Section 11B, the Commissioner records that unjust enrichment shall not apply to refund of unspent PLA balance, but at the same time he also records that he does not mean that the unspent PLA balance is duty. He has recorded that the said provision has been incorporated as an abundant precaution to ensure that even by mistake, the provision of unjust enrichment is not applied for such refund. He also records that since there is a specific provision for refund of PLA balance under Rule 9 (1A) and 173G (1A) of the said Rules, therefore, such refund would be squarely covered under the said Rules and not under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which applies only for refund of duty. He has, therefore, recorded that the provisions of Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 granting interest for delayed refund of duty is not attracted in the present case.
3. After hearing, perusal of the records and relevant provisions as mentioned above, I do not find any legal infirmity in the Order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) so far as the applicability of Rule 9 (1A) and Rule 173G (1A) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, is concerned. The appeal filed by the appellant is, therefore, dismissed.
