2007 (3) TMI 467 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Validity of refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944
- Time-barred nature of the refund claim
- Existence of a letter of protest affecting the limitation period

Analysis:

The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi was brought by the Revenue challenging the Commissioner (Appeals) order that upheld the respondent's refund claim and deemed it not time-barred. The Assistant Commissioner had initially determined that a refund of Rs. 9 lakhs was due to the respondent under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Revenue contended that the refund claim was time-barred as it was filed after a year from its return with a discrepancy note. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) found that the existence of a letter of protest from the party meant the claim was not time-barred.

The department's representative argued that the incomplete refund claim was returned to the respondent with a query memo, and when it was refiled after removing the discrepancy on a later date, it exceeded the prescribed time limit under Section 11B. It was emphasized that the absence of a 'letter of protest' in the record indicated that the payment was not made 'under protest'. The Deputy Commissioner's earlier order advised the party to file a formal refund claim for Rs. 9 lakhs, specifically mentioning that a letter of protest had been sent at the time of the initial payment.

The Tribunal found that the party had indeed sent a letter of protest at the time of payment, as evidenced by the Order-in-Original. The acceptance of Order-in-Original No. 18/2002 by the department further supported this fact. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the refund claim was not time-barred, as the letter of protest effectively extended the limitation period for filing the claim. Therefore, the appeal by the Revenue was deemed unsubstantiated and dismissed by the Tribunal.