2013 (4) TMI 707 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of benefit of Notification No. 108/95 CE - Held that - At the time of payment, TR 6 challan bore a remark that if any refund arises, the same may be paid directly to M/s. Power Grid Corpn. of India Ltd. Commissioner (Appeals) has construed the remark as payment of duty under protest which is being disputed by the Revenue inasmuch as no protest was lodged on each and every invoice and no letter of protest was separately filed. - identical issue was the subject matter of the Tribunal s order in the same assesse s case reported as M/s. Power Grid Corpn. of India Ltd. vs. CC, Chennai 2008 (10) TMI 92 - CESTAT, CHENNAI . While considering all the aspects in detail, including the meetings between the representatives of various Ministries as also the fact of late sanction of world bank loan, the Tribunal arrived at a finding that the issue of time bar will not apply to sanction of refund claim by the Revenue. By following the said order, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund of duty deposit under protest by the respondent.
2. Dispute regarding the nature of payment made by the respondent.
3. Application of time bar to the sanction of refund claim by the Revenue.

Analysis:

1. The appeals by the Revenue involved the issue of refund of duty deposit made by the respondent, a manufacturer, to M/s. Hindustan Vidut Products Ltd. The respondent cleared their final product to M/s. Power Grid Corpn. of India Ltd. as deemed export without payment of duty, citing Notification No. 108/95 CE due to a delay in the grant of a world bank loan. The Revenue advised the respondent to deposit the duty benefits availed, with the assurance of refund upon loan sanction. The Commissioner (Appeals) held in favor of the respondent, stating that the duty deposit was made under protest, leading to the Revenue's appeal.

2. The Revenue contested the nature of the payment made by the respondent, highlighting the absence of a formal protest on each invoice or a separate protest letter. However, the TR 6 challan at the time of payment contained a remark indicating the refund should be paid directly to the respondent. The Commissioner (Appeals) interpreted this remark as a payment made under protest, a point disputed by the Revenue.

3. The Tribunal referred to a previous case involving the same respondent, where it was established that the issue of time bar would not apply to the sanction of the refund claim by the Revenue. Considering various factors such as delays in loan sanction and meetings between ministries, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, rejecting the Revenue's appeals. The Tribunal found no fault in the Commissioner's order, following the precedent set in the earlier case.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues of refund under protest, nature of payment dispute, and the application of time bar to the refund claim sanction by the Revenue, resulting in the rejection of the Revenue's appeals.