2008 (9) TMI 785 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Appeal against order setting aside refund claim rejection based on time bar u/s 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944.

The judgment pertains to an appeal filed by the Revenue against an order-in-appeal that set aside the rejection of a refund claim by the adjudicating authority. The refund claim was filed by the respondents for the duty paid in excess on invoices dated 29-5-1998. The Revenue contended that the refund claim was time-barred, as it should have been filed within six months from the payment of the duty. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed the appeal based on the ground that the respondents had submitted proof to show no unjust enrichment. However, the appellate tribunal found that the refund claim was clearly time-barred as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The tribunal held that if a refund claim is time-barred, further deliberations are unnecessary, and the claim stands rejected. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal by the Revenue was allowed.

In the impugned order, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had concluded that the refund claim for duty paid in excess was filed beyond the time stipulated by Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner's decision to allow the appeal and set aside the order-in-original was based on the belief that the respondents had provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate no unjust enrichment. However, the appellate tribunal disagreed with this reasoning, stating that the primary consideration should have been whether the refund claim was within the statutory time limit. Since the tribunal found the claim to be time-barred, it held that the order setting aside the rejection of the refund claim was incorrect. As there was no appeal filed by the respondent against the rejection based on being time-barred, the tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal and set aside the impugned order.