Archana Wadhwa, J. - (1.)AFTER hearing both the sides, we find that the appellant is registered with the Central Excise as also with the Service Tax and is discharging his Central Excise duty liability as also Service Tax liability. For the said purpose, two PLA accounts are maintained by them # one for payment of service tax and the other for payment of excise duty. It is seen that the appellant used the balance amount in their ST PLA for payment of duty of excise during the month of May 2006. Subsequently on an audit objection raised by the audit team indicating that Service Tax PLA balance cannot be used for payment of duty of excise, the appellant again paid the duty of excise from RG -23A Pt. II on 15/11/06. Consequently, they claimed the refund of Rs. 1,38,869/ -, which was originally paid by them from the PLA maintained for the purpose of payment of Service Tax. It is seen that the subsequent payment of excise duty for the second time from the Cenvat account was on 15/11/06 and the refund claim was made by the appellant on 16/3/07 i.e. within the period of limitation. However, the lower authorities have rejected the said refund claim on the ground that period of limitation has to be reckoned from the date from the original deposit of duty in the PLA on Service Tax account, which was during the period April 2005 to September 2005. If that be so, the refund would be barred by limitation.
(2.)AFTER appreciating the reasoning adopted by the Revenue, we find that there is no dispute about the fact that the appellant discharged his Central Excise liability by using a PLA, which was primarily meant for Service Tax. It was only subsequently when audit objected, they paid the duty from the Cenvat account meant for Excise duty payment purposes and claimed the refund of the first time duty paid by them. Such cause of action for claiming refund can arose only when the appellants pays the duty second time from a different account. As such, we agree with the learned advocate that cause of action arose only on 15/11/06, when they paid the duty of excise for the second time out of a different account maintained by them and as a result of audit objection. Admittedly they could not have asked for refund of duty prior to the said date. As such, the refund having been filed in March 2007 has to be held as having been filed within the period of limitation. Otherwise also, we find that it was only a question of payment of excise duty from different accounts and is not a case of any clandestine activity. The appellant having discharged his excise duty liability from PLA account meant for Service Tax, when asked to pay duty from the other Cenvat account of excise duty, is entitled to make corrective accounting entries. With the second time payment of duty, the appellant is admittedly entitled to take the credit of the duty earlier paid by them. As such, we are of the view that the denial of refund claim on the ground of limitation is not justified. We accordingly set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant.