2009 (3) TMI 835 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Appeal against setting aside Adjudication Order, correctness of refund claim, limitation period for filing refund claim, unjust enrichment, excess payment by mistake, competent authority for refund claim.

Summary:

Issue 1: Correctness of refund claim and limitation period
The Revenue appealed against the setting aside of the Adjudication Order, claiming the refund claim filed by the respondent was barred by limitation as it was filed after depositing the excess amount in their Personal Ledger Account (PLA). The Revenue argued that the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) were contrary to the Tribunal's decision in B.D.H. Industries Ltd. v. CCE (Appeals), Mumbai-I, which stated that any refund claim, even for excess amounts, would be subject to unjust enrichment. The respondent, however, contended that the refund claim was within the limitation period as it was a continuation of a previous letter claiming the refund of the excess amount debited by mistake. The respondent also cited relevant case laws to support their argument.

Issue 2: Competent authority for refund claim
The Revenue contended that the letter dated 25-5-2006, claiming the refund, was not filed in the proper form as it was addressed to the Superintendent of Central Excise, who was not the competent authority. They argued that the subsequent refund claim filed on 4-7-2006 was the valid claim within the period of limitation. However, the Tribunal held that the letter dated 25-5-2006, though not supported by documents initially, could be considered as a valid refund claim when supported by proper documents later. The Tribunal also referenced case laws to support the acceptance of claims made by mistake in excess of duty.

Conclusion:
After reviewing the facts, case laws, and circumstances, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and rejected the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the order, considering the excess payment by mistake and the relevant legal precedents cited in support of the respondent's position.

(Order dictated & pronounced in open Court on 25-3-2009)