Featured image for Supreme Court Judgment dated 20-02-2019 in case of petitioner name Western Coalfields Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise
| |

Excise Duty Refund Claim: Supreme Court Denies Buyer’s Appeal for Time-Barred Refund

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered an important ruling in the case of Western Coalfields Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Trichy/Madurai. This case revolved around the claim for a refund of excise duty paid under protest and the limitation period applicable under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The key legal issue was whether the six-month limitation period applied when the refund claim was filed by the buyer, rather than the manufacturer who initially paid the duty.

Background of the Case

Western Coalfields Ltd. (WCL), a public sector undertaking engaged in coal mining, purchased conveyor beltings from M/s. Fenner (India) Ltd. The manufacturer, M/s. Fenner (India) Ltd., had paid excise duty under protest due to an ongoing dispute over the classification of the product. The dispute was finally settled by the Supreme Court in M/s. Fenner (India) Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise, Madurai, in a ruling that favored the manufacturer. However, the manufacturer did not file for a refund of the duty paid under protest.

On 20 December 1996, WCL filed a refund claim for the excise duty paid on purchases made between 20 July 1988 and 15 January 1994, arguing that since the duty was paid under protest by the manufacturer, the limitation period should not apply to the buyer.

Key Issues Before the Supreme Court

  • Whether the six-month limitation period under Section 11B applied to a refund claim filed by the buyer instead of the manufacturer.
  • Whether the buyer was entitled to rely on the protest made by the manufacturer to claim an exemption from the limitation period.
  • Whether the refund claim was valid despite being filed years after the purchase of the goods.

Petitioner’s (Western Coalfields Ltd.) Arguments

  • The petitioner argued that since the manufacturer had paid the excise duty under protest, the limitation period should not apply to the buyer’s refund claim.
  • The protest made by the manufacturer at the time of duty payment should extend to the buyer as well.
  • The petitioner, as the ultimate bearer of the excise duty, had a legitimate claim for a refund and should not be denied on technical grounds.
  • The principle of unjust enrichment did not apply since the duty was paid by the petitioner and not passed on to consumers.

Respondent’s (Commissioner of Central Excise) Arguments

  • The respondent argued that the buyer and the manufacturer are treated separately under the Central Excise Act, and the limitation period applies independently to each.
  • The manufacturer had never applied for a refund, and the buyer’s claim, filed after several years, was time-barred under Section 11B.
  • Under the law, a refund claim must be filed within six months from the date of purchase by the buyer, and this period cannot be extended by the protest made by the manufacturer.
  • The Tribunal had correctly applied the Supreme Court’s ruling in Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II vs. Allied Photographics India Ltd., which held that a buyer must comply with the six-month limitation period.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court examined the relevant provisions of the Central Excise Act and ruled in favor of the respondent. The Court made key observations:

“The scheme of Section 11B makes a distinction between the right of the manufacturer to claim a refund and the right of the buyer to claim a refund, treating them as separate and distinct entities.”

“The buyer must file a refund application within six months from the date of purchase of the goods. The fact that the manufacturer paid the duty under protest does not extend the limitation period for the buyer.”

“The Tribunal correctly applied the ruling in Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II vs. Allied Photographics India Ltd., where it was held that the buyer’s refund claim must comply with the statutory limitation period.”

Key Findings of the Supreme Court

  • The refund claim filed by Western Coalfields Ltd. was time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.
  • The manufacturer and the buyer are treated separately in excise duty refunds, and the buyer cannot claim an exemption from the limitation period based on the manufacturer’s protest.
  • The buyer must file for a refund within six months from the date of purchase, failing which the claim becomes ineligible.
  • The ruling reaffirmed the principle that compliance with statutory deadlines is mandatory for refund claims.

Impact of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications for refund claims under the Central Excise Act:

  • It establishes that the six-month limitation period applies independently to buyers and manufacturers.
  • It reinforces the requirement for buyers to file refund claims within six months of purchase, irrespective of whether the manufacturer paid duty under protest.
  • It clarifies that manufacturers and buyers are distinct entities under the law, and procedural compliance is necessary for refunds.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Western Coalfields Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Trichy/Madurai reaffirms the principle that refund claims must adhere to statutory timelines. By rejecting the buyer’s argument that the manufacturer’s protest should extend the limitation period, the Court upheld the mandatory six-month period under Section 11B. This ruling serves as a precedent for future cases involving excise duty refunds and reinforces the importance of timely compliance with legal procedures.


Petitioner Name: Western Coalfields Ltd..
Respondent Name: Commissioner of Central Excise Trichy/Madurai.
Judgment By: Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Justice Ajay Rastogi.
Place Of Incident: India.
Judgment Date: 20-02-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Western Coalfields L vs Commissioner of Cent Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 20-02-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Tax Refund Disputes
See all petitions in Income Tax Disputes
See all petitions in Customs and Excise
See all petitions in Judgment by A M Khanwilkar
See all petitions in Judgment by Ajay Rastogi
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments February 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Taxation and Financial Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Taxation and Financial Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Taxation and Financial Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Taxation and Financial Cases Category

Similar Posts