2007 (3) TMI 431 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Refund claim rejected on the ground of limitation.

The judgment deals with a case where the appellant deposited an amount during an investigation and later became entitled to a refund after proceedings were dropped. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claim citing limitation as the application was filed beyond the six-month period from the date of payment. This rejection was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the present appeal.

The Tribunal observed that the deposit was made during the investigation and before the proceedings commenced. The appellants became eligible for a refund only after the proceedings were dropped, which happened within two months of the order. The Tribunal referred to precedent stating that deposits made during investigations, where proceedings are later dropped, are not subject to the limitation period. Relying on the case of C.C.E., Chennai-III v. Rane Engine Valves Ltd., it was held that there was no justification for rejecting the refund claim. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants.