2016 (1) TMI 1165 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - Period of limitation - Held that - On perusal of the records, find that the appellant, by letter dated 3-10-2007, which is received by the department on 9-10-2007, informed that they have debited the amount of ₹ 84,434/- under protest vide PLA Entry Serial No. 47, dated 3-10-2007. Thus, it is clearly evident that the appellant paid the amount under protest. It is also noted that the appellant categorically mentioned in the PLA that the amount is debited under protest. So, the findings of the lower authorities that the demand is barred by limitation cannot be accepted. The other aspect of this case is that the appellant by letter dated 21-7-2008 filed the refund claim and on 17-2-2011 they submitted the said refund claim in form R at the instance of officers. So, the initial claim of refund was filed within the stipulated period. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim filed by the appellant and subsequent rejection by the department.
2. Grounds of limitation for rejecting the refund claim.
3. Appeal against rejection of refund claim.

Analysis:
The case involved a refund claim filed by the appellant on 17-10-2005 for an amount of &8377; 84,434/-, which was erroneously deposited. The adjudicating authority granted the refund, and the appellant received the amount on 30-6-2006. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued for recovery of the refund claim amount, but it was dropped. The department directed the appellant to repay the refund amount, which was done under protest on 9-10-2007. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the department's appeal, and the Tribunal upheld this decision on 5-1-2009. However, a refund claim was filed again on 17-2-2011, which was rejected by the adjudicating authority on the grounds of being time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner (Appeals) also rejected the appeal filed by the appellant.

Upon perusal of the adjudication order, it was observed that the refund claim filed on 17-2-2011 was for the amount paid on 3-10-2007, which was beyond the prescribed time limit. However, it was noted that the appellant had informed the department about debiting the amount under protest on 3-10-2007. The appellant had clearly stated in the PLA that the amount was debited under protest, indicating their objection to the payment. Additionally, the appellant had initially filed the refund claim within the stipulated period, and the subsequent submission of the claim in form 'R' on 17-2-2011 was at the instance of officers. Therefore, the findings of the lower authorities that the demand was time-barred were deemed unacceptable. The impugned orders were set aside, and the appeal filed by the appellant was allowed, overturning the rejection of the refund claim.

In conclusion, the judgment revolved around the rejection of a refund claim based on the grounds of limitation, highlighting the importance of timely filing and the implications of protesting payments. The decision emphasized the need for proper documentation and adherence to statutory timelines in such matters.