Rachna Gupta ORDER
Rachna Gupta, Member (J)
1. The order of Commissioner (Appeals) bearing No. 319 dated 26.11.2019 has been assailed in this appeal. The appellant herein is engaged a manufacture of Galvanized Transmission and Communication Tower Plants. A refund claim for an amount of Rs. 2,01,262/- was filed by the appellant on 29.11.2018 against the cash amount deposited in their PLA account, for payment of duty as shown in their current account on 30th June, 2017 and was also shown in their ER-1 Return for the month of June, 2017. However, a show cause notice bearing No. 9762 dated 31.12.2018 was served upon the appellant proposing rejection of the said refund claim as it appeared to be hit by the limitation of period of one year from the relevant date i.e. the date of account current balance as on 30th June, 2017. The rejection was initially confirmed vide Order-in-Original No. 01/2019 dated 23.01.2019. Appeal thereof has been rejected by the Order under challenge.
2. I have heard Shri Sanjay Kumar, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri P. Juneja, learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant has mentioned that the Adjudicating Authority below has erred in considering the amount in question to be a duty and thus Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 (CEA) has wrongly been invoked for rejecting the claim on the issue of limitation mentioned in said Section 11B. It is submitted that it was appellant's own money deposited in his PLA Account to which he is any time entitled to withdraw. Subjecting the same to a limitation of one year prescribed under Section 11B of CEA, is absolutely irrational. The order under challenge is, accordingly, prayed to be set aside and appeal is prayed to be allowed.
4. Per-contra, it is submitted by the Department that there is no provision in entire Central Excise Act then said Section 11B which talks about the refund of any amount to the appellant. Hence, the application of the appellant was very much under Section 11B. There is a statutory mandate for such an application to be filed within one year of the relevant date. The date of the closing balance was the relevant date. The application filed in November, 2018 is definitely much beyond the impugned period of one year. There is no illegality nor any infirmity in the order, appeal is prayed to be dismissed.
5. After hearing both the parties and perusing the entire record considered opinion of mine is as follows:-
It is an admitted fact that appellant was having account current/PLA for payment of duty. It also cannot be disputed that the purpose of such account is that the money deposited by the assessee in such account has to be debited there-from as and when the duty for clearance of goods is required to be paid by the assessee i.e. against a liability that has to reckon in future. Admittedly the closing balance of said PLA account as on 30th June, 2017 was Rs. 2,02,162/-. Admittedly as on 30.07.2017 the duty liability of appellant for the impugned period was discharged and the aforesaid amount was appellant's money to be adjusted against any duty liability arising after 01.07.2017. 1st July 2017 has been the date of transition into GST. The aforesaid amount remained unutilized by the appellant. The said closing balance has also been duly reflected in the ER-1 Return filed by the appellant. These admissions makes it clear that the amount in question was not at all the amount of duty or interest it was rather appellants own amount which either could be utilized by him while discharging his duty liability else the appellant was entitled to get the refund thereof.
6. There is a distinction between the amount appropriated towards duty and amount deposited for payment of a duty. In a former case duty which has been levi........