Judgment:
1. In this appeal, the appellants have challenged the impugned order-in-appeal dated 14-9-2001 of the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has affirmed the order-in-original of the Deputy Commissioner disallowing the refund of Rs. 26,697/- as time-barred.
2. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants are the manufacturers of V.P. Sugar. Under the provisions of Essential Commodities Act, they are required to sell fixed quantity of sugar as 'Levy Sugar' and rest of the sugar, as Tree Sale Sugar'. In the month of November, 1998, the Ministry of Food and Consumer Affairs, vide letter dated 28-10-1998 took 80.9 M.T. of sugar on loan basis from the appellants from their 'Free Sale Quota', as 'Levy Sugar'. The appellants were asked to pay the differential duty on the sugar as 'Levy Sugar' and accordingly the payment of Rs. 26,697/- through PLA was made by them on 10-3-1999. However, later on, the Ministry through letter dated 13-7-1999 returned the said loan quantity of sugar, by making book entries, to the appellants, The appellants thereafter filed the refund claim for the refund of Rs. 26,697/-. The Deputy Commissioner rejected their refund as time barred and that order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 12-7-2000 had been affirmed by the Commissioner.
3. I have heard both sides. The refund claim of the appellants had been rejected having been filed after six months from the date of payment.
The payment was admittedly made by them on 10-3-1999, while the refund claim was filed by them on 23-12-1999 i.e. after expiry of statutory period of six months. The plea taken up by the appellants is that, since the Ministry of Food and Consumer Affairs vide letter dated 13-7-1999 returned them the quota of sugar taken on loan, they became entitled to the refund of the debited differential amount. But their plea has been rightly not accepted by the authorities below as under Section 11-B of the Act, the refund has to be filed within six months from the relevant date i.e. the date of payment. The subsequent letter of the Ministry of Food & Consumer Affairs dated 13-7-1999 did not in any manner extend the time of limitation. The claim having been filed after the expiry of six months, in my view, has been rightly rejected.
Therefore, I do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the same is upheld. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.