PLA Refunds Post GST

`Personal Ledger Account – Refunds post GST
In most of the States, now abolished VAT Legislations had the popular method
of using Demand Drafts for paying off Net Tax Liabilities (‘NTL’), while Center
gradually had absolutely mandated the electronic payment for paying off the NTL
for service tax and Central Excise Duty. For depositing any NTL under Central
Excise and Service Tax Law, an assessee (or ‘taxpayer’) could make payment in
respective tax code via GAR 7 Challan on the EASIEST Portal using Internet
Banking. The Central Excise Legislation had one difference compare to the
Service Tax Legislation, that it had a system of an Electronic Cash Ledger called
Personal Ledger Account or Account-current (‘PLA’). We can already draw some
association with the Electronic Cash Ledger (‘ECaL’), which is provided under
Section 49 (1) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 read with
respective State Goods and Service Tax Act(s) (collectively called as ‘GST Act’) .
The following lays a discussion into the PLA, as it was before and it’s after effects
post implementation of Goods and Service Tax (‘GST’) Regime.
A. The Life and Times of PLA
It’s again emphasized that, the system of PLA was only present under the Central
Excise but not under the Service Tax, there lies an interesting reason behind
such differentiation. The last thing we know about Central Excise payment date
was 5 th /6 th of every next month except for the month of March which is 31 st
March.
It’s would be an exaggeration to say that Central Excise Duty has and always
been a tax on every manufacture, also every removal was the collection point.
When we say “removal”, it was literally every removal, that excise duty was
supposed to be paid. That means, if a manufacturer, manufactures a product
today, and removes it tomorrow, he had to remove it by paying excise duty, by
drawing Demand Draft upon his Bank. Imagine the chaos, each and every
removal required a visit to the bank for tendering excise duty. To rise above such
challenge, a system known as PLA was introduced. The assessee would deposit
an appropriate amount in PLA via Challan and the amount stood as a Credit
Balance. Every time, a removal is caused, all the assessee had to do was Debit
1
PLA with the excise duty amount in the manually maintained register.
Consequently the visits to Banks were reduced to minimal.
The payment method was different for service tax since the beginning, Rule 6 of
the first ever Service Tax Rules, 1994 (‘STR’) prescribed that service tax shall be
payable by the 15 th of next month, the need for a PLA was not felt. A similar
payment system was adopted for Central Excise Duty in the near future as we
last saw it. As on 30 th June 2017, PLA was alive without a soul. PLA was basically
a pass through, therefore anybody seldom felt the need to maintain significant
balance therein.
B. Resemblance between PLA with ECaL
Similar to Central Excise Act, 1944 (the ‘Excise Act’), GST Act provides two
modes of paying tax liabilities viz. through Electronic Credit Ledger and
Electronic Cash Ledger (‘ECaL’). The primary object for incorporating these
ledgers is to sync the electronic return filing procedure.
The excise duty was first deposited vide Challan, increasing the credit of PLA,
such credit could then be used to pay off NTL in the erstwhile excise returns ER-
1. So is the case in the GST as well, the payment is made to the credit of ECaL,
such credit is then used to pay off the NTL created upon submission of Form
GSTR 3B. Although ECaL carries the legacy of PLA, however ECaL is more
comprehensive and covers tax liabilities arising out otherwise than returns as
well.
Service Tax Law with subordinate Rules had a very complicated and abysma l
system of dealing with tax deposits. The total of GAR 7 Challan had to either be
equal or more than the tax liabilities declared in ST 3 returns. In case, an
assessee had deposited excess Service tax, the option of adjustment was
restricted only for the next month, although the Courts had extended the
meaning of next month to subsequent month(s). Still however, it was
cumbersome to keep track record of the Challans with the corresponding tax
liabilities. The Joint Committee in its Report on Business proce ss under GST
had therefore recommended the use of ECaL for payment procedures.
2
C. Features of PLA
1. No Substantive legislation
The provisions for maintenance of ECaL are provided under the GST Act. Quite
astonishingly however in pre GST Regime, post substitution of Central Excise
Rules, 1944 (‘CER, 1944’) the PLA had no statutory enforcement. In fact,
Supplementary Instructions Manual of CBEC issued post 2005, also had no
provisions for maintaining of PLA.
2. PLA is a part of assessee’s assets
The PLA is a composite of Debits, Credits and the closing balance. The debits
represents utilization of a crystalized tax (regular or demand), the credits
represents the deposits, while the closing positive balance represents the asset
of an assessee. The closing balance of PLA is on same footings as an ordinary
bank account.
3. Not the property of government
As stated above, PLA is one of the current assets of an assessee, the property
doesn’t pass upon the government by mere deposits in PLA. Reliance may be
placed on Jay Shree Tea & Industries Ltd. vs CCE, Kolkata
2005(08)LCX0069;
There is a distinction between the amount appropriate towards duty and

amount deposited for payment of a duty. In a former case duty which has
only been levied and paid evidently becomes the property of the Government
and no person would be entitled to get it back unless there is a provision of
law to enable that person to get the duty already appropriated back from
the state or the Government. In the latter case, however, when an amount
has been deposited to be appropriated thereafter towards duty which may
fall due there having no appropriation, the property in money does not pass
to the Government unless the goods are cleared and the duty is levied.
3
4. Straight forward refund
Unlike the general refund claim procedures, refund of PLA is rather modest. In
catena of judgments, it has been held that PLA refund doesn’t face the objections
of either Unjust Enrichment or the Time Bar, besides any other conditions of
erstwhile Section 11B of Excise Act are also inapplicable. Reliance can be placed
on;
 Navdeep Packaging Industries vs CCE, Ahemdabad 2006(12)LCX0128

 Welspun India Limited vs CCE 2009(08)LCX0027
 Jay Shree Tea & Industries Ltd. case supra
 Bijlalimoni Tea Estate vs CCE 2007(01)LCX0270
Further, Section 11B per se disqualifies PLA balance refund from the uphill of
unjust enrichment, Refer clause (b) of Proviso to Section 11B(2).
5. Relevant Date for time limitation under Section 11B
Although, it is squarely settled that, no time bar is appl icable for PLA Refunds,
there have been instances wherein the revenue had sought to impose time
limitation of claiming refund. The revenue arguments sets on the premise that,
relevant date for claiming refund has to be counted from the date on which
Challan is deposited in the PLA viz. date of Credit. However, all such devious
attempts to deny refund have been counteracted by the Courts. In Samrat
International (P) Ltd. vs CCE 1990(09)LCX0085, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
clearly laid down relevant date for an un-crystalized liability, shall be the
date on which duty is actually debited via returns and not the date of deposit
by Challan.
Similar judgments follows in Collector of Central Excise vs Delhi Cloth Mills

1993(09)LCX0051, Assam Industrial Corporation vs Collector of Central
Excise 1983(10)LCX0060.
6. No Interest on PLA Balance
4
Although PLA balance is sort of deposit with government, the government is not
bound to pay any Interest on the balance. The Interest on refund was government
by Section 11BB of erstwhile Excise Act. The Hon’ble CESTAT in Navdeep
Packaging Industries case supra, holding that PLA Refund is not governed by
Section 11BB, therefore, there is no requirement of paying interest on it.
D. Position of PLA post GST
The GST was implemented with effect from 01 July 2017, for a quite a time since
then, the transitional procedures continued vide From TRAN 1 and will be
continued till last date of TRAN 2. Form TRAN 1 and TRAN 2 encapsulates
various types of switching provisions for erstwhile closing balance of Credits,
closing stocks, stocks lying with other parties etc. However, none of the
provisions in the GST Act or Rules contained migration of closing balance
of PLA. The reason for such not migration are unknown and unpleasant.
The only option left with a taxpayer having PLA balance as on 01 July 2017 is to
seek a refund claim. No guidelines have been issued regarding claiming such
refunds. A discussion is necessary therefore as to how can a taxpayer migrated
under GST should claim refund of PLA Balance;
1. Eligibility of Refund
Given that, no alterations have been made into the nature of erstwhile PLA
regulations, it will be safe to say that GST Regime hasn’t embossed any special
implications upon its refund formalities. To say it otherwise, PLA Refund shall
continue to be governed as it was governed earlier. An FAQ published by the
CBIC (erstwhile CBEC) on Mining Sector addressed the situation of PLA Balance;
43. What will happen to the balance available in the current account
(PLA) under Central excise, deposited in cash in advance by any
assesse?
Answer: Balance in PLA will not be under transition to GST since that has
not been appropriated to the Government account which will be determined
post completion of the pending assessment. The same can be claimed as
refund under the Central Excise Law.
5
2. Determining Statutory Force
It is crystal clear that, a balance in PLA is not a tax and not a property of
government, but only kept with it. A government can extract tax only under the
sanction of Article 265 of the Constitution of India, and not otherwise. Further
apparently, provisions of Section 11B of Excise Act seems to be inapplicable to
PLA refunds in as much as it per se governs the refund of either duty of excise
or interest. However, clause (b) of Section 11B (2) exempts PLA Refund from
unjust enrichment burden, implying that Section 11B may cover such refunds
also.
The Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat had an occasion to rule on a similar conflict
in INDO-NIPPON CHEMICALS CO. LTD. vs UOI 2002(02)LCX0431, wherein
there was an argument proposed by the petitioner that clause (c) of proviso to
Section 11B (2) is not an exception to Section11B(1) but only a surplusage. The
Court though, discerned with the views of petitioner that such interpretation is
not substantive enough to hold that clauses (c) is surplusage, therefore not
governed by Section 11B ex facie.
However in Hon’ble CESTAT in case of Navdeep Packaging Industries supra,

has hold that impugned clause (b) is incorporated as an abundant precaution
only to ensure that even by mistake, the provision of unjust enrichment is not
applied for such refund. Further since such refund were governed under
erstwhile Rule 173G (1A) of the CER, 1944, recourse cannot be taken to Section
11B ibid.
Even after supersession of Rule 173G (1A) ibid, the ratio of Navdeep Packaging
Industries harmoniously holds good, moreover ratio of Nippon Chemicals is not
directly towards clause (b), therefore there should not be any confusion as to
inapplicability of Section 11B ibid while adjudicating PLA refunds and treating
it as an ordinary refund claim.
3. Form of Application
6
Since, the refund claim is an ordinary claim, there is no prescribed Performa,

accordingly, normally it has been seen that, that Refund Claim is preferred as a
business letter on either letterhead or ordinary blank paper. There is however, a
school of thought, that Refund claim should be preferred in a modified format
provided as Form R under Section 11B ibid. The primary thought process behind
for presenting such format is to suit the adjudication process. However, at this
juncture it is important, that reference to Section 11B in Form R should be
deleted, so that the adjudication officer not even by mistake ap plies provisions
of Section 11B.
Reliance can also be placed upon Circular No. 984/08/2014 -CX dated
16/09/2014 which provides guidelines relating to pre deposits under Section
35F of Excise Act. Para 5.2 and Para 7 of the circular provides that Pre deposits
are not payment of duty, hence they need not be subjected to the process of
refund under Section 11B, and a simple letter of refund along with self -attested
supporting documents suffice the requirement of such refund claims. As far as
the nature of refund claims goes, pre deposit and PLA are on similar footings,
therefore procedure under this Circular harmoniously supports the simple
refund claim procedure.
4. Litigation post filing of claim
A denial of refund claim for PLA balance whether adjudicated under Section 11B
or otherwise are appealable orders/ decisions under Chapter VIA Appeals of the
Excise Act.
35. Appeals to Commissioner (Appeals).-

(1) Any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this Act
by a Central Excise Officer………
From the mere reading of Section 35 (1) it is clear that, a refund claim filed under
a business letter is adjudicated as a communication, such communica tion is an
appealable order as appeal against the decision viz. first nature. If by some
possibility, then such refund claim is adjudicated by the Adjudication Officer as
7
Order in Original, said order ex facie becomes appealable order of second

nature. The provisions of Section 35 ibid are saved by Section 142 (7) of the GST
Act.
5. An adverse Judgment
Despite, the law being settled that Section 11B is not applicable for the PLA
Refunds, the Hon’ble Ahmedabad CESTAT sitting in Single Bench in case of
Valson Polyster Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Daman
2011(04)LCX0259 has ruled an adverse order. The Tribunal has not only
applied Section 11B for such refunds but also has held that the time bar for a
PLA Refund begins from the date on which Treasury Ch allan was deposited
to make credit to it, relying upon Clause (B)(f) of Explanation to Section 11B.
The judgment of the Single Member Bench appears to be wholly contradictory

with the settled law and violative of the precedents set by superior Courts.
Following grounds can be taken to rebut the position taken in the judgment;
 The judgment is per incuriam in as much as the bench didn’t considered the
settled ratio of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Samrat International (P)
Ltd supra relied upon in Delhi Cloth Mills 1993(09)LCX0051 wherein the
impugned date in clause (f) of Explanation to Section 11B has been
interpreted as the date on which duty is paid and not the date on which
Challan is deposited.
 Valson Polyster is a single member bench judgment while Welspun India

Limited supra judgment from the same Ahmedabad bench is a Division bench
judgment. As per the law of bench size precedence the decision of Division
Bench shall prevail over the Single Member Bench decision, as held in Down
Town Travels Pvt. Limited 2011(07)LCX0024.
 From the body of the judgment it is clear that none of the judgments are
quoted above were brought to the notice of the Bench, therefore in absence of
8
a reasoned order, the Valson Polyster judgment is not a precedent to be

followed.
9
Central Excise Series No. 2AA
FORM
Application for refund of Personal Ledger Account Balance
To
The Assistant Commissioner,
Central Excise,
Division _________
Collectorate ______
1. I/We, Ms/ _______________________, are registered with the Central/ State

Goods and Service Tax Department vide GSTN No. ________________. We were
registered under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (‘the Act’) vide Registration
No. _________ __________, having been migrated into the Goods and Service
Tax with effect from 01 July 2017. We are engaged in the manufacture of
_____________ falling under Customs Tariff Code _______ of the Customs
Tariff Act, 1975 read with Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (‘GST
Act’).
2. I/We claim refund of Rs. ______________________ (Rupees_____________) from

the Account Current (or ‘PLA’) maintained by us under our erstwhile
Central Excise Registration, on the grounds mentioned hereunder:-
Transition provision for Migration of PLA
(a) That, we have been engaged in manufacturing and clearance of ________

since the date we had taken Central Excise Registration. Under the
10
compliance of the Act, we were required to file monthly returns in Form ER-
1 for reporting our Central Excise Liability and how the said Liability was
paid by us.
(b) That, Act specified two modes of payment of Central Excise Liability either
by way of Debit in the Cenvat Credit Account or by way of Debit in the
Account Current.
(c) That, because of insufficiency of our balances in our Cenvat Credit Account
we were required to deposit tax by way of Account Current. Further as per
our business practice, appropriate amount of balance was always
maintained under the Account Current.
(d) That, while filing the ER 1 return for the period June 2017, it was discovered
by us that Central Excise Liability for the month falls short of the balance
in the Account Current i.e. the Account ended with a positive balance of Rs.
__________ post filing of final return before GST.
(e) That, GST Act doesn’t contain any specific provision for transition of closing
balance in the Account Current as on 30/06/2017. However, one of the FAQ
published by the CBIC (earlier known as CBEC) on Mining Sector specifically
permits the refund option for the balance of Account Current. For the sake
of brevity, the said FAQ No. 43 is reproduced below;
43. What will happen to the balance available in the current

account (PLA) under Central excise, deposited in cash in
advance by any assesse?
Answer: Balance in PLA will not be under transition to GST since that
has not been appropriated to the Government account which will be
determined post completion of the pending assessment. The same
can be claimed as refund under the Central Excise Law.
(f) It is amply clear from the above, that the Migration route for Account
Current is Refund Route, and refund should be permitted without any
resistance.
11
We are otherwise eligible for the Refund
(g) That, for the sake of curbing un-necessary qualifications and reservations
over the eligibility of PLA Refund claim is substantiated through the
succeeding paragraphs;
(h) That, Jurisprudence over PLA refund in not res integra and has been settled
in catena of judgments over the years by the respective Courts. We rely upon
following judgments;
In Jay Shree Tea & Industries Ltd. vs CCE, Kolkata 2005(08)LCX0069,

the Hon’ble CESTAT had held that the PLA is in the nature of a deposit with
the government and money belongs to the assessee, therefore he can claim
back his money
There is a distinction between the amount appropriate towards duty

and amount deposited for payment of a duty. In a former case duty
which has only been levied and paid evidently becomes the property
of the Government and no person would be entitled to get it back
unless there is a provision of law to enable that person to get the duty
already appropriated back from the state or the Government. In the
latter case, however, when an amount has been deposited to be
appropriated thereafter towards duty which may fall due there
having no appropriation, the property in money does not pass to the
Government unless the goods are cleared and the duty is levied.
In present case the money deposited in PLA cannot be utilised

due to withdrawal of Central Excise duty on Package Tea and
Tea including Tea waste. The money belongs to the appellant
over which the Department has no claim. The appeal deserves
to be allowed. I therefore allow the appeal with consequential
benefit to the Appellant.
In Bijlalimoni Tea Estate vs CCE 2007(01)LCX0270, the Hon’ble CESTAT

held that Section 11B of the Act is inapplicable qua PLA Refunds and relied
upon Instruction vide F.No. 202/24/72-CX.6 dt. 6.1.78 issued by CBIC to
hold that the refund is eligible;
12
3. Ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that if any refund of duty is

claimed under Central Excise Act, 1944, due process of law as
required under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944, should be
followed and the authorities have rightly rejected claim for the
appellant. Meeting to such point, the ld. Counsel has submitted that
the Central Board of Excise & Customs has already issued
instruction vide F.No. 202/24/72-CX.6 dt. 6.1.78, in consultation
with the Ministry of Law to the effect that un-utilised amount in PLA
is refundable to the appellants and relying on this instruction, the
appellant submitted that this Bench has already decided such matter
in the case of Jay Shree Tea & Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of
Central Excise, Kolkata reported in 2005 (071) RLT 0367 (CESTAT-
Kol.).
4. On the basis of the above decision, the appellants cannot be denied
of justice and cannot be un-equally treated under law. It is judicial
discipline that demands that unless that order of this forum is stayed
by higher Courts or reversed by any such Court, order of this forum
shall prevail and that should be followed unhesitatingly. I am
inclined to agree to uphold majesty of law and follow judicial
discipline and allow the appeal since the issue is no more res-integra.
In Welspun India Limited vs CCE 2009(08)LCX0027, the Hon’ble Tribunal

relied upon the judgments of Jay Shree Tea & Industries supra and
reiterated the position that an unspent amount in PLA is available for
withdrawal by assessee.
As held in the above referred judgments, the money is that of the
assessee and can be claimed by him without attracting the provisions
of refund claim. It is like an account book maintained in the banks
and indicative of the fact as to how much money stands deposited
by the assessee for utilization towards payment of duty in future. If
duty is not required to be paid and the assessee is not able to utilize
at for payment of duty, the amount lying unutilized is available for
withdrawal by the assessee. In view of the above, impugned order is
set aside and appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the
appellants.
In, Navdeep Packaging Industries vs CCE, Ahemdabad 2006(12)LCX0128 the

Hon’ble Tribunal has again affirmed that Section 11B has no application for
the purpose of PLA Refund. The Tribunal further affirmed that Clause (b) of
Proviso to Section 11B (2) which dis-qualifies test of Unjust Enrichment for
PLA Refunds, is used only as a precaution and not as an exception to Section
11B (1) per se;
13
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 fur 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.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Samrat International (P) Ltd. vs CCE

1990(09)LCX0085, has clearly laid down relevant date for an un-
crystalized liability, shall be the date on which duty is actually debited
via returns and not the date of deposit by Challan.
Therefore even if assumed, but not accepted that Section 11B is applicable
for the PLA refund, the time bar of one year shall not be taken as date of
deposit into PLA.
14
(i) From the foregoing paragraphs, it is abundantly clear that , We are eligible
for the refund claim, therefore it is most respectfully prayed that the refund
be credited to us.
2. I/We enclose the following documents in support of the claim.
(a) Latest Copy of PLA Register i.e. 30/06/2017

(b) Copy of erstwhile Central Excise Registration (Form RC)
(c) Copy of GST Registration (Form REG-06)
(d) Copy of relied upon Judgments
3. The amount claimed was originally paid by Treasury Challan No. _______ dated
_______ deposited into _______ Treasury under the Head of Account III Union
Excise duties/Duty on _______ miscellaneous receipts/by adjustment in Account
Current No. _________ dated _________.
5. The payment of refund may please be made in my/our favour by a crossed

cheque on _________ Treasury/by money order at Government cost.
6. I/We declare that no refund on this account has been claimed/received by

me/us earlier.
7. I/We declare that the duty for which refund has been claimed has not been
charged/realised from any other person and a copy of the price -list, relevant
Gate Pass (Central Excise) like documents and invoices are enclosed.
8. I/We undertake to refund on demand being made within six months of the
date of payment of any rebate erroneously paid to me/us.
15
Dated_______ Signature
and full address of claimant
Received payment
Revenue Stamp (For amounts exceeding Rs. 20.00) _________________________________
Signature of claimant
Claim of Shri/Messrs _________________ has been scrutinised and found correct.
Refund of Rs. _____ (Rupees _____________) is sanctioned.
Certified that no refund order regarding the sum now in question has previously been
passed.
Head of Account
Supdt./A.C.
of C. Ex. ______
(SANCTIONING AUTHORITY)
Rs. ____ credited towards consumer welfare fund established under Section 12C of the
Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
16
Cheque No. ___________.dated ______ for Rs. ________ (Rupees______________) issued on

______ (RBI/SBI/Treasury) in settlement of this claim.
A.C. of Central Excise.
(For use in the C.A.O.'s office)
Post audited certified that (i) the amount concerning which the refund is given has been
credited into the Treasury/ (ii) order of refund has been verified with
(a) DD1/DD2/AR1/AR5/AR6/AR7/AR8/AR9/AR10/T.C. No. _______dated _______

Gate Pass No. ______.
OR
(b) Debit entry in account current No. _______ dated ______ and (ii) Refund has been
noted against the original credit under my signature.
17
FORM NO. EA-1
BEFORE THE HON'BLE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS),
EXCISE APPEAL NO. /2018
M/S. _________________ ............ APPELLANT
1. No. of 2018
2. Name and address of the ____________
Appellant
3. Designation and address of the ____________
officer passing the decision or
order appealed against and the
date of the decision or order.
4. Date of communication of the ____________
decision or order appealed
against to the Appellant.
5. Address to which the notices ____________
may be sent to the Appellant.
5A.
(i) Description and classification of ____________
goods
(ii) Period of dispute June 2017 to Jul 2017
(iii) Amount of duty, if any, Not Applicable
demanded for the period
mentioned in item (ii)
(iv) Amount of refund, if any, ____________
claimed for the period
mentioned in item (ii)
(v) Amount of fine imposed Not Applicable
18
(vi) Amount of penalty imposed. Not Applicable

(vii) Market value of seized goods Not Applicable
6. Whether duty and penalty or Not Applicable
both is deposited. If not,
whether any application for
dispensing with such deposit
has been made. (A copy of the
Challan under which the
deposit is made shall be
furnished).
6A. Whether the Appellant wishes Yes.
to be heard in person
7. Reliefs claimed in the appeal As per prayers made in the appeal
19
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. M/s _________ (Name) _________, _________ (Address) _________ (hereinafter

referred to as the ‘the Appellant’) are filing the present appeal against the
Order-in-Original No. __________________ dated ____________ (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the impugned Order’ or ‘the OIO’) passed by the Ld. Assistant
Commissioner, _________ (Jurisdiction) _________ (hereinafter referred to as
‘the Adjudicating Authority’). Copy of OIO is attached as Annexure-A.
2. The Adjudicating Authority has rejected the Refund Claim am ounting to Rs.
_______________ filed by the Appellant vide Refund Application dated
____________ (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Application’). Copy of Refund
Application is attached as Annexure-B.
Facts of the Case:
3. The Appellant are registered with the Central/ State Goods and Service Tax
Department vide GSTN No. ________________ and were registered under the
Central Excise Act, 1944 (‘Excise Act’) vide Registration No.
___________________, having been migrated into the Goods and Service Tax
with effect from 01 July 2017.
4. The Appellant are engaged in the manufacture of _____________ falling under

Customs Tariff Code _______ of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 read with
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (‘GST Act’).
5. That, the Appellant had been regularly manufacturing and clearing their
product under the Central Excise Registration. Under the compliance of the
Excise Act, the Appellant were required to file monthly returns in Form ER-
1 for reporting their Central Excise Liability and how the said Liability was
paid by them.
20
6. That, the Excise Act specified two modes of payment of Central Excise
Liability either by way of Debit in the Cenvat Credit Account or by way of
Debit in the Account Current (or ‘PLA’).
7. That, because of insufficiency of balances in their Cenvat Credit Account

the Appellant were required to deposit tax by way of Account Current.
Further as per the business practice, appropriate amount of balance was
always maintained under the Account Current.
8. That, while filing the ER 1 return for the period Jun 2017, it was discovered
by the Appellant that Central Excise Liability for the month falls short of
the balance in the Account Current i.e. the Account ended with a positive
balance of Rs. __________ post filing of final return before GST.
9. That, as per the relevant provisions as prevalent during the Central Excise
Regime and clarification post enactment of GST Act by the CBIC (earlier
CBEC) the Appellant had preferred refund claim of Rs. __________
(Rupees_____________) from the Account Current maintained by them
under their erstwhile Central Excise Registration vide the Application.
10. Unfortunately, however, being unsatisfied with the eligibility of the refund
claim, the Adjudicating Authority has rejected the claim vide OIO No.
_________ dated ___________.
11. Hence this Appeal.
21
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
12. At the outset, the Appellant submits that the OIO passed by Adjudicating
Authority is erroneous both on facts and in law and hence is liable to be set
aside.
13. That the grounds of appeal set out herein are independent and without
prejudice to one another.
A. PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11B OF EXCISE ACT ARE NOT APPLICABLE

FOR PLA REFUND
B. LIMITATION PERIOD UNDER PRESCRIBED UNDER EXPLANATION TO
SECTION 11B HAS TO BE SEEN FROM DATE OF CRYSTALIZATION OF
DUTY
C. THE PLA REFUND CLAIM IS ELIGIBLE ON MERITS
D. JUDGMENT OF VELSON POLYSTER IS UNREASONED, AGAINST THE
SETTLED JURISPRUDENCE HENCE INAPPLICABLE TO THE FACTS
22
A. PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11B OF EXCISE ACT ARE NOT APPLICABLE

FOR PLA REFUND
A.1. That, the Adjudicating Authority vide Para 4.4 of the OIO has held that
provisions of Section 11B are attracted in case of PLA Refund since the
Treasury Challan was made under the Head – ‘Basic Excise Duty’;
4.6. ……….They theref ore submit t hat the provisions of

Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are not
attracted in the instant case. N this regard I f ind that the
claimant have shown that the amounts were credited in
the PLA were based on deposit made through TR -6
Challans where the head of deposit was clearly shown as
‘Bas ic Excise Duty’ (Accoun ting Code No. 00380003).
Theref ore the provisions of Section 11B are clearly
attracted
A.2. That, it is most respectfully submitted that the finding of the Adjudicating
Authority wholly erroneous and unformulated. The Accounting Code No.
00380003 with the Heading ‘Basic Excise Duty’ of Treasury Challan, on
which the Adjudicating Authority has relied upon is merely a deposit
account of the Government. Depositing an amount in any Accounting
Code doesn’t crystalize the amount as any duty.
A.3. That, it has been well settled that a Treasury Challan is merely a mode of
deposit of payment and not a discharge of any tax or duty. The Hon’ble
Ahmedabad CESTAT in case Gujarat Engineering Works vs CCEx,
Ahmedabad 2013(04)LCX0019 has abundantly made it clear that a
deposit by Challan is a deposit and not duty.
7. The f irs t appe llate au thority in the impugned order has

co me to a conclusion that the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/ -
wh ich has been deposited by the appellan t is a duty
wo rked ou t by the Central Excise Of f icers. I f ind f rom the
records that the amount which has been deposited by the
TR-6 challan dated 2 -8-2005 was a round f igure of Rs.
1,00,000/ - which cannot be considered as a du ty bu t has
to be cons idered as a deposit as the subsequent sho w
cause no tice whic h was issued to the assessee, as
here inabove recorded, is f or an amount of Rs. 41,81,875/ -
23
. Hence in my v ie w, an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/ - deposited

by the appe llan t even under panchanama canno t be
cons idered as a duty deposited worked out by the Central
Excise Of f icers. In my view, the said amount can be a t
the mos t an amount deposited by the appellant to
pursue his legal rights to the show cause notice and
being heard by the higher judicial fora on the iss ue.
I find tha t both the lower authorities have
misdirected their findings by applying provisions of
Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and more
so by applying definition of relevant date given in the
explanation. I find tha t in the case in hand, the
amount whic h ha s been sought as a refund by the
appellant is not a duty which bec ome refundable as
a consequence of judgment bu t an amount which has
been deposited by the appellant as a pre -deposit
during the course of investiga tion.
A.4. That, since the amount deposited vide Treasury Challan is not a duty, the
provisions of Section 11B are not invited. The Appellant also relies upon
the judgement Bijlalimoni Tea Estate vs CCE 2007(01)LCX0270,
wherein the Hon’ble Tribunal has clearly held that provisions of Section
11B ibid are not applicable for claiming PLA Refund

Kol.).
24
A.5. The Appellant also relies upon following judgments to support their
contention
 Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai II vs Allied Photographic India
Ltd. 2004(03)LCX0109
 Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-II vs Ucal Fuel Systems Ltd.
2011(09)LCX0377
 ITEL Industries Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Calicut
2014(01)LCX0008
 Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Bangalore vs Kvr Construction
2010(11)LCX0194
 Navdeep Packaging Industries vs CCE, Ahemdabad 2006(12)LCX0128
 Welspun India Limited vs CCE 2009(08)LCX0027
 Jay Shree Tea & Industries Ltd. vs CCE, Kolkata 2005(08)LCX0069
A.6. That, the observation of the Adjudicating Authority also runs contrary to
the Chapter 3 Part V (Manner of payment of duty and Current Account)
of the CBEC Manual of Supplementary Instructions. In the said, it has
been loudly worded that treasury deposits are used for crediting the PLA
while duty is only what is debited from the PLA. Relevant paragraphs
are highlighted below;
1.3 The duty can be discharged by debiting an account

current (also ref erred to as Personal Ledger Account {PLA])
-and debiting the CENVAT Credit Account main tained by
the assessee under the provisions of CENVAT Credit
Rules, 2002.
1.5 In accoun t current [Personal Ledger Account], credit is

taken by depos iting money in the banks on T.R.6 Challans.
The guide lines regarding account current are men tioned in
subsequent paragraphs.
A.7. That, the observation of the Adjudicating Authority also runs counter to
the provisions of Section 3 of the Excise Act. As per Section 3, the duty of
excise is leviable only on the manufacture of goods and not the deposit
25
of as such made in the PLA. If the argument of the Adjudicating Autho rity
is accepted, then every deposit in the PLA would result in a levy which is
not there in the Section 3 and result in tax without levy, violating the
Article 265 of the Constitution of India.
A.8. In light of the foregoing provisions, the observation of the Adjudicating

Authority that Section 11B is applicable to the PLA refunds is against the
law and against the facts and hence required to be struck down.
B. LIMITATION PERIOD UNDER PRESCRIBED UNDER EXPLANATION TO

SECTION 11B HAS TO BE SEEN FROM DATE OF CRYSTALIZATION OF
DUTY
B.1. That, vide Para 4.5, the Adjudicating Authority has observed that Time
Bar of Section 11B is 1 year and since the Appellant had made deposit
vide TR 6 Challan dated 15/03/2014 i.e. more than 3 years have passed
when the refund claim has been filed on 09/11/2017. Therefore, the
Refund claim is not eligible on the sole basis of time bar.
4.5 Fro m the above I f ind that the claimant has f iled
ref und claim af ter more than 3 years f rom the date of
actual paymen t. The claim should have been f iled within
the time limit prescribed under Section 11B of the Central
Excise Ac t, 1944, which is whith in one year f rom the date
of payme nt. Thus I f ind that the claim is hit by limitation
of time f actor
B.2. That notwithstanding above, if it is assumed but not accepted that

provisions of Section 11B are applied, then also the Adjudicating Authority
has committed a serious error in applying the provisions of time limitation.
B.3. That as per Section 11B (1) time limitation of one year has to be counted
from the ‘relevant date’ which in turn is defined under the Explanation
clause (B) as follows;
(B) "relev an t date" means, -
26
(a) in the case of goods exported out of India where a

ref und of excise duty paid is availa ble in respec t of the
goods the mselves or, as the case may be, the excisable
mate rials used in the manuf acture of such goods, -
(i) if the goods are exported by sea or air, the date
on which the ship or the aircraf t in which such goods are
lo aded, le aves India, or
(ii) if the goods are exported by land, the date on which
such goods pass the f rontier, or
(iii) if the goods are exported by post, the date of despatch
of goods by the Post Of f ice concerned to a place
outs ide India;
(b) in the case of goods returned f or being remade, ref ined,

reconditioned, or subjected to any o ther similar process,
in any f actory, the date of entry into the f actory f or the
purposes af oresaid;
(c) in the case of goods to which banderols are required to

be af f ixed if removed f or home consumption but not so
required when exported ou tside India, if returned to a
f actory af ter hav ing been removed f rom such f actory f or
export ou t of India, the date of entry into the f actory;
(d) in a case where a manu f acturer is required to pay a

sum, f or a cer tain period, on the basis of the rate f ixed by
the Central Governmen t by notif ication in the Of f icial
Gaze tte in f ull discharge of his liability f or the duty
lev iable on his production of certain goods, if af ter the
manuf acturer has made the paymen t on the basis of such
rate f or any period but bef ore the expiry of that period
such rate is reduced, the date of such reduction;
(e) in the case of a person, other than the manuf acturer,

the date of purchase of the goo ds by such person;
(ea) in the case of goods which are exemp t f rom payment

of duty by a spe cial order issued under sub -sec tion (2) of
sectio n 5A, the date of issue of such order;
(eb) in case where duty of excise is paid provisionally

under this Ac t or t he rules made there under, the date of
adjus tment of duty af ter the f inal assessment thereof ;
(ec) in case where the duty becomes ref undable as a

consequence of judg ment, decree, order or direction of
appe llate authority, Appellate Tribunal or any cour t, the
date of such judg ment, decree, order or direction;
(f ) in any o ther case, the date of payment of duty.
27
B.4. That, a close scrutiny of the above clauses makes it apparently clear that
none of the clauses seems to be cover the refund claim of PLA. Even the
residuary clause (f) is inapplicable since the deposit vide Treasury Challan
is not a payment of duty, as evidently clear from Paragraph A above.
Therefore the very observation of the Adjudicating Authority has no
locus standi.
B.5. In Samrat International (P) Ltd. vs CCE 1990(09)LCX0085, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court clearly laid down relevant date for an un-crystalized
duty, shall be the date on which duty is actually debited via returns
and not the date of deposit by Challan.
Similar judgments follows in Collector of Central Excise vs Delhi Cloth

Mills 1993(09)LCX0051, Assam Industrial Corporation vs Collector of
Central Excise 1983(10)LCX0060.
B.6. From the preceding paragraphs it is vehemently clear that date for refund
claim under PLA should not be seen as the date of deposit of Challan.
Instead the relevant date limb is not applicable per se while gauging the
refund claims under PLA.
B.7. In light of the foregoing provisions, the rejection of the Application based
on time limitation is liable to be struck aside and refund claim should be
allowed.
C. THE PLA REFUND CLAIM IS ELIGIBLE ON MERITS
C.1. That, while rejecting the Refund Application, the Adjudicating Authority
has violated the law of the land and acted in gross negligence of binding
precedents.
28
C.2. Post implementation of GST, the Central Government had incorporated

various provisions in the GST Act for transitioning of closing stocks and
closing Credits. Although GST Act doesn’t contain any specific provision
for transition of closing balance in the PLA as on 30/06/2017. However,
such refunds was addressed by one of the FAQ published by the CBIC on
Mining Sector which specifically permitted the refund for the balance of
Account Current. For the sake of brevity, the said FAQ No. 43 is
reproduced below;
43. What will happen to the balance available in the current

account (PLA) under Central excise, deposited in cash in
advance by any assesse?
Answer: Balance in PLA will not be under transition to GST since that
has not been appropriated to the Government account which will be
determined post completion of the pending assessment. The same
can be claimed as refund under the Central Excise Law.
C.3. That furthermore, the issue of PLA refund is no longer res integra and has
been settled by the Hon’ble Courts in favour of the assessee in multiple
judgments.
C.4. In Jay Shree Tea & Industries Ltd. vs CCE, Kolkata 2005(08)LCX0069,
the Hon’ble CESTAT had held that the PLA is in the nature of a deposit
with the government and money belongs to the assessee, therefore he can
claim back his money
There is a distinction between the amount appropriate towards duty
and amount deposited for payment of a duty. In a former case duty
which has only been levied and paid evidently becomes the property
of the Government and no person would be entitled to get it back
unless there is a provision of law to enable that person to get the duty
already appropriated back from the state or the Government. In the
latter case, however, when an amount has been deposited to be
appropriated thereafter towards duty which may fall due there
having no appropriation, the property in money does not pass to the
Government unless the goods are cleared and the duty is levied.
In present case the money deposited in PLA cannot be utilised

due to withdrawal of Central Excise duty on Package Tea and
29
Tea including Tea waste. The money belongs to the appellant

over which the Department has no claim. The appeal deserves
to be allowed. I therefore allow the appeal with consequential
benefit to the Appellant.
C.5. In Bijlalimoni Tea Estate vs CCE 2007(01)LCX0270, the Hon’ble

CESTAT held that Section 11B of the Act is inapplicable qua PLA Refunds
and relied upon Instruction vide F.No. 202/24/72-CX.6 dt. 6.1.78 issued
by CBIC to hold that the refund is eligible;

Kol.).
C.6. In Welspun India Limited vs CCE 2009(08)LCX0027, the Hon’ble

Tribunal relied upon the judgments of Jay Shree Tea & Industries supra
and reiterated the position that an unspent amount in PLA is available for
withdrawal by assessee.
As held in the above referred judgments, the money is that of the
assessee and can be claimed by him without attracting the provisions
of refund claim. It is like an account book maintained in the banks
and indicative of the fact as to how much money stands deposited
by the assessee for utilization towards payment of duty in future. If
duty is not required to be paid and the assessee is not able to utilize
at for payment of duty, the amount lying unutilized is available for
withdrawal by the assessee. In view of the above, impugned order is
30
set aside and appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the

appellants.
C.7. In, Navdeep Packaging Industries vs CCE, Ahemdabad

2006(12)LCX0128 the Hon’ble Tribunal has again affirmed that Section
11B has no application for the purpose of PLA Refund. The Tribunal
further affirmed that Clause (b) of Proviso to Section 11B (2) which dis -
qualifies test of Unjust Enrichment for PLA Refunds, is used on ly as a
precaution and not as an exception to Section 11B (1) per se;
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 fur 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.
C.8. That, the above judgments and stand point of government post GST,
unarguably tilts towards the eligibility of Refund of PLA balance.
31
C.9. That, despite PLA Refunds having sanctity of law, the Adjudicating
Authority has fervently opted to over-ride them. Therefore the OIO is liable
to be struck down and refund claim be allowed.
D. JUDGMENT OF VELSON POLYSTER IS UNREASONED, AGAINST THE

SETTLED JURISPRUDENCE HENCE INAPPLICABLE TO THE FACTS
D.1. That the Adjudicating Authority has opted for pick and choose approach
while adjudicating the refund claim. Ignoring the judgments quoted in
foregoing paragraphs, the Adjudicating Authority has solely relied upon
the judgment of Hon’ble CESTAT Single Member Bench in case of Valson
Polyster Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Daman
2011(04)LCX0259
D.2. That, in the Valson Polyster Ltd judgment presided by the Single Member,
the CESTAT has denied PLA Refund on the similar grounds as propounded
by the Adjudicating Authority in OIO.
D.3. It is most respectfully submitted that, the judgment of Valson Polyster Ltd.
is per incuriam and runs contrary to the settled law by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in case of In Samrat International (P) Ltd. supra, wherein
the Apex Court had clearly laid down relevant date for an un-crystalized
duty, shall be the date on which duty is actually debited via returns
and not the date of deposit by Challan.
D.4. That, moreover, the judgment of Valson Polyster Ltd. is a single member
bench judgment while Welspun India Limited supra judgment from the
same Ahmedabad bench of CESTAT is a Division bench judgment. As per
the law of bench size precedence the decision of Division Bench shall
prevail over the Single Member Bench decision, as held in Down Town
Travels Pvt. Limited 2011(07)LCX0024.
32
D.5. That, from the body of the judgment it is clear that none of the judgments
quoted above were brought to the notice of the Bench, therefore in absence
of a reasoned order, the Valson Polyster judgment is not a precedent to be
followed.
D.6. That, disregarding the favourable judgments from the superior courts
quoted above and relying upon the judgment of an inferior Court shows
the biased approach of the Adjudicating Authority.
D.7. Therefore the observation of the Adjudicating Authority is liable to be

struck down on this ground alone, and refund claim be allowed.
33
PRAYER
4. In view of the above, it is respectfully prayed that the Hon’ble

Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise may be pleased to: -
(a) Set aside the impugned Order-in-Original No. _______ dated _________,
passed by the Ld. Assistant Commissioner and allow the appeal in
full, with consequential relief;
(b) Allow the Refund claim dated filed by the Appellant
(c) Grant a personal hearing;
(d) Pass such other order or orders as may be deemed fit and proper in
the facts and circumstances of the case.
APPELLANT
34
VERIFICATION
I, ____________________, ______________________ of the Appellant do hereby verify

and state that what is stated hereinabove is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief.
Verified today, the ___________ day of ______________ , 2018
APPELLANT
35

PLA Refunds Post GST

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PLA Refunds Post GST

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

`Personal Ledger Account – Refunds post GST

A. The Life and Times of PLA

B. Resemblance between PLA with ECaL

2. PLA is a part of assessee’s assets

3. Not the property of government

There is a distinction between the amount appropriate towards duty and

4. Straight forward refund

 Navdeep Packaging Industries vs CCE, Ahemdabad 2006(12)LCX0128

5. Relevant Date for time limitation under Section 11B

Similar judgments follows in Collector of Central Excise vs Delhi Cloth Mills

6. No Interest on PLA Balance

D. Position of PLA post GST

2. Determining Statutory Force

However in Hon’ble CESTAT in case of Navdeep Packaging Industries supra,

Since, the refund claim is an ordinary claim, there is no prescribed Performa,

4. Litigation post filing of claim

35. Appeals to Commissioner (Appeals).-

Order in Original, said order ex facie becomes appealable order of second

The judgment of the Single Member Bench appears to be wholly contradictory

 Valson Polyster is a single member bench judgment while Welspun India

a reasoned order, the Valson Polyster judgment is not a precedent to be

Central Excise Series No. 2AA

The Assistant Commissioner,

1. I/We, Ms/ _______________________, are registered with the Central/ State

2. I/We claim refund of Rs. ______________________ (Rupees_____________) from

Transition provision for Migration of PLA

(a) That, we have been engaged in manufacturing and clearance of ________

43. What will happen to the balance available in the current

We are otherwise eligible for the Refund

In Jay Shree Tea & Industries Ltd. vs CCE, Kolkata 2005(08)LCX0069,

There is a distinction between the amount appropriate towards duty

In present case the money deposited in PLA cannot be utilised

In Bijlalimoni Tea Estate vs CCE 2007(01)LCX0270, the Hon’ble CESTAT

3. Ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that if any refund of duty is

In Welspun India Limited vs CCE 2009(08)LCX0027, the Hon’ble Tribunal

In, Navdeep Packaging Industries vs CCE, Ahemdabad 2006(12)LCX0128 the

2. The issue involved is whether the refund of unspent PLA balance

3. After hearing, perusal of the records and relevant provisions as

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Samrat International (P) Ltd. vs CCE

2. I/We enclose the following documents in support of the claim.

(a) Latest Copy of PLA Register i.e. 30/06/2017

5. The payment of refund may please be made in my/our favour by a crossed

6. I/We declare that no refund on this account has been claimed/received by

Revenue Stamp (For amounts exceeding Rs. 20.00) _________________________________

Claim of Shri/Messrs _________________ has been scrutinised and found correct.

Refund of Rs. _____ (Rupees _____________) is sanctioned.

Cheque No. ___________.dated ______ for Rs. ________ (Rupees______________) issued on

A.C. of Central Excise.

(For use in the C.A.O.'s office)

(a) DD1/DD2/AR1/AR5/AR6/AR7/AR8/AR9/AR10/T.C. No. _______dated _______

FORM NO. EA-1

BEFORE THE HON'BLE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS),

EXCISE APPEAL NO. /2018

M/S. _________________ ............ APPELLANT

(vi) Amount of penalty imposed. Not Applicable

1. M/s _________ (Name) _________, _________ (Address) _________ (hereinafter

Facts of the Case:

4. The Appellant are engaged in the manufacture of _____________ falling under

7. That, because of insufficiency of balances in their Cenvat Credit Account

11. Hence this Appeal.

A. PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11B OF EXCISE ACT ARE NOT APPLICABLE

A. PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11B OF EXCISE ACT ARE NOT APPLICABLE

4.6. ……….They theref ore submit t hat the provisions of

7. The f irs t appe llate au thority in the impugned order has

2. I/We claim refund of Rs. __________ (Rupees_) from

Refund of Rs. _ (Rupees _________) is sanctioned.

Cheque No. _.dated for Rs. (Rupees______) issued on

(a) DD1/DD2/AR1/AR5/AR6/AR7/AR8/AR9/AR10/T.C. No. _dated _

1. M/s _____ (Name) _, _ (Address) _____ (hereinafter

I, , __ of the Appellant do hereby verify

Verified today, the _ day of ____ , 2018