2010 (8) TMI 802 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Rectification of Tribunal's Final Order, Time bar aspect, Unjust enrichment, Validity of refund claim, Impact of court order on refund claim, Applicability of limitation period.

Rectification of Tribunal's Final Order: The applicant-Commissioner sought rectification of the Tribunal's Final Order No. 1070 & 1071/09 dated 19-8-09. The Tribunal remanded the case to the adjudicating authority on two main terms: firstly, regarding the time bar aspect citing the National Winder v. CCE., Allahabad case, and secondly, concerning unjust enrichment. The Department's appeal was allowed for further examination on whether the assessees had passed on the duty incidence to their customers.

Validity of Refund Claim: The applicant argued that the refund became due following a favorable order from the High Court of Madras on 29-6-1999, and the refund claim was filed on 24-11-1999, within a reasonable period of six months. The applicant contended that this was not merely a case of protest, and thus, the entitlement to the refund was not affected by subsequent judgments.

Impact of Court Order on Refund Claim: The Tribunal noted that the law was amended in 2007 to include the date of a court order as relevant for filing a refund claim and to prescribe a time limit. In this case, the High Court's order was dated 29-6-1999, and the refund claim was filed within six months, which was considered reasonable. As there was no specific time limit prescribed at the time for filing a refund claim after a court order, the claim was not time-barred.

Applicability of Limitation Period: The Tribunal acknowledged that the Supreme Court's decision in the National Winder case was overruled by a Larger Bench in the Allied Photographic India case. However, considering the specific circumstances of this case and the absence of a prescribed time limit for filing a refund claim after a court order, the Tribunal held that the refund claim was not hit by limitation. The Tribunal modified its earlier order and allowed the refund claim based on the High Court's order.

Conclusion: The Tribunal disposed of the matter by modifying its previous order, holding that the refund claim was valid and not time-barred. The decision emphasized the specific circumstances of the case, the absence of a prescribed time limit, and the timely filing of the refund claim following the High Court's order.