2013 (11) TMI 490 - AT - Central Excise

Bar of Limitation Refund Order - Excess duty paid on final product - Waiver of Pre-deposit - The issue is that the appellant had paid excess duty on their final product by including the transportation charges in the assessable value of their goods - Held that - The demand having been issued by invoking longer period of limitation is clearly barred - the appellant filed a refund claim along with the statement, which are verified and refund orders were issued - The refund orders have not been challenged by the Revenue and have attained finality thus issuance of show cause notice by invoking longer period of limitation is not in accordance with law unconditional stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of duty and penalty.
2. Interpretation of Notification No. 56/2002-CE regarding refund of duty.
3. Dispute over excess duty payment and transportation charges.
4. Validity of show cause notice invoking longer period of limitation.

Analysis:
The judgment addresses the issue of dispensing with the pre-deposit condition of duty and penalty amounting to Rs.10,56,934/- imposed on the applicant. The applicant, located in Jammu & Kashmir, availed the benefit of Notification No.56/2002-CE allowing refund of duty paid out of PLA. It was noted that the applicant filed statements along with refund claims for verification by Central Excise Officers, leading to the issuance of refund orders. The dispute arose from the appellant's alleged payment of excess duty by including transportation charges in the assessable value of goods during 2006-07 to 15th November 2007, affecting the refund amount. Despite arguments by the appellants, the Tribunal found the demand invoking a longer limitation period to be time-barred. The Tribunal emphasized that the refund orders had not been challenged by the Revenue and had attained finality, rendering the show cause notice invalid due to the time limitation issue. Consequently, the stay petition was unconditionally allowed based on the time bar aspect.

In conclusion, the judgment highlights the importance of adhering to statutory limitations in issuing show cause notices and upholding the finality of refund orders. The interpretation of Notification No.56/2002-CE played a crucial role in determining the refund claims, emphasizing compliance with procedural requirements. The Tribunal's decision to dispense with the pre-deposit condition and penalty was based on the legal principle of time bar, safeguarding the appellant's rights in the face of procedural irregularities.