2013 (8) TMI 199 - HC - Central Excise

Period of limitation of refund claim under section 11B of the Central Excise Act Held that - Relying upon the decision in the case of Dena Snuff (P) Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh 2003 (9) TMI 84 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , it has been held that period of limitation of one year prescribed under Sub Section (1) will not apply in case duties are paid under protest. Hon ble Supreme Court held that the relevant date from which the period of limitation starts to run is from the date on which the assessee s own case finally decided by the Tribunal - Issue relating to period of limitation, uniformly held that no limitation was applicable to the payment made under protest - Payment made herein is also deemed to be under protest and no limitation is applicable and the claim is maintainable and is rightly decided by the CESTAT Decided against the Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding the period of limitation for refund claims.
2. Determination of whether duty payments were made under protest or not.
3. Application of legal precedents regarding limitation on refund claims made under protest.

Analysis:
1. The appeal before the High Court involved a substantial question of law regarding the interpretation of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The primary issue was whether the assessee's claim fell within the period of limitation stipulated in the said section. The dispute arose from the duty paid on freight charges by the assessee for the period from December 1994 to September 1995. The Revenue contended that the refund claim made by the assessee was barred by limitation as per Section 11B. However, the assessee argued that the duty payments were made under protest, thereby exempting them from the limitation period.

2. The crux of the matter revolved around whether the duty payments were made under protest or not. The assessee maintained that the payments were deemed to be made under protest, while the Revenue argued otherwise. The High Court analyzed the facts and observed that the payment of duty during the pendency of appeal proceedings should be treated as "paid under protest." The Court referred to legal precedents, including the decision in M/s. Engineering Projects (India) Ltd v. CCE, Calcutta, to support the assessee's position. The First Appellate Authority had accepted the assessee's claim, leading to the Revenue's appeal before the Tribunal.

3. The High Court extensively discussed legal precedents, including the Supreme Court judgments in the cases of Mafatlal Industries Ltd and Dena Snuff (P) Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh, to determine the applicability of limitation on refund claims made under protest. The Court highlighted that the Supreme Court had consistently held that no limitation applied to payments made under protest. By analyzing the factual similarities between the cases decided by the Supreme Court and the present case, the High Court concluded that the duty payments in this instance were also deemed to be made under protest. Therefore, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal and affirming the maintainability of the assessee's refund claim.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment delved into the interpretation of statutory provisions, the nature of duty payments, and the application of legal precedents to resolve the issues raised in the appeal. By aligning with the Supreme Court's consistent stance on payments made under protest, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.