NCCD Refund Barred Beyond 1 Year Despite Cash Payment

Centax Editorial Board

April 21, 2026April 22, 2026

• 2 min. read

Case Details: India Yamaha Motor Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Chennai (2026) 39 Centax 99 (Tri.-Mad)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

S/Shri P. Dinesha, Member (J) & Vasa Seshagiri Rao, Member (T)
Shri Raghavan Ramabadran, Adv., for the Appellant.
Shri Sanjay Kakkar, Authorised Representative, for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The appellant-assessee, being a manufacturer of motorcycles and scooters, was liable to National Calamity Contingent Duty (NCCD) under section 136 of the Finance Act, 2001. From March 2016 onwards, the law required that NCCD must be paid only in cash (not by using CENVAT credit). This requirement came from the fifth proviso to Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. However, the appellant paid NCCD by using CENVAT credit. The department issued a show cause notice, after which the appellant paid NCCD in cash and thereafter filed Form R seeking a refund of the earlier debit made through CENVAT credit. The refund application was filed after the expiry of one year from the relevant date. The matter was accordingly placed before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).

CESTAT Held

The CESTAT held that a refund could be claimed only under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and was required to satisfy the statutory limitation prescribed therein. It was observed that the refund application was filed beyond the period of one year from the relevant date. Reliance was placed on the decision in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. [1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.)] to hold that the refund must meet the statutory limitation. It was held that since the claim was filed beyond the prescribed timeframe, rejection on limitation was unassailable. Accordingly, the appeal on limitation failed.