2005 (4) TMI 424 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Denial of refund claim based on limitation period

Analysis:
The appeal in this case concerns the denial of a refund claim to the appellants, which was rejected by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) on grounds of being time-barred. The duty was initially paid under protest due to a dispute regarding the classification of the goods manufactured by the appellants. However, this dispute was resolved in favor of the appellants by the Apex Court on a specific date. The contention put forth was that since the duty was paid under protest and the dispute was resolved later, the bar of limitation should not apply. The appellant cited the case law of CCE, Chandigarh v. Kaushal Steel Rolling Mills to support this argument.

Upon review, it was found that although the duty was initially paid under protest, the dispute was resolved in favor of the appellants by the Apex Court on a specific date. Following this judgment, the protest lodged by the appellants was considered vacated, making them eligible for a refund of the duty paid earlier. However, the appellants failed to file the refund claim within the stipulated period of six months from the date of the Apex Court's order. The Tribunal held that the refund claim filed on a later date was rightly considered time-barred. The Tribunal distinguished the case of CCE, Chandigarh v. Kaushal Steel Rolling Mills from the present case, as well as the case of Collector v. Prestige Engg. (India) Pvt. Ltd., where the refund claim was not time-barred due to the protest not being disposed of by the assessee.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found no illegality in the impugned order and upheld the decision to dismiss the appeal of the appellants. The judgment emphasizes the importance of filing refund claims within the specified time limits even if the duty was initially paid under protest and later resolved in favor of the party.