2014 (1) TMI 378 - AT - Central Excise

Payment of duty under protest - Delayed refund Revenue was of the view that no protest was lodged on each and every invoice and no letter of protest was separately filed - Held that - Following M/s. Power Grid Corpn. of India Ltd. vs. CC, Chennai 2008 (10) TMI 92 - CESTAT, CHENNAI - 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 issue of time bar will not apply to sanction of refund claim by the Revenue Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund of duty under protest
2. Interpretation of TR 6 challan remark
3. Application of time bar to refund claim

Refund of duty under protest:
The judgment dealt with three appeals by the Revenue concerning the refund of duty paid by M/s. Hindustan Vidut Products Ltd. (HVPL) on their final product cleared to M/s. Power Grid Corpn. of India Ltd. as a deemed export without payment of duty. The Revenue advised the respondents to deposit the duty benefits availed, which the respondents did with a remark that if the loan is sanctioned, the duty would be refunded. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the duty deposit was under protest, a decision challenged by the Revenue. The Tribunal, considering previous orders and the delay in loan sanction, upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, rejecting the Revenue's appeals.

Interpretation of TR 6 challan remark:
The Revenue contested the interpretation of the TR 6 challan remark, arguing that no formal protest was lodged on each invoice or through a separate letter. The Commissioner (Appeals) construed the remark as payment of duty under protest, a stance disputed by the Revenue. The Tribunal, however, found no fault in the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, citing a previous case involving the same assessee where the issue was thoroughly examined, including delays in loan sanction and inter-ministerial discussions. Following the precedent, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeals.

Application of time bar to refund claim:
The Tribunal referenced a previous order concerning the same assessee to conclude that the issue of time bar did not apply to the sanction of the refund claim by the Revenue. By analyzing various aspects, such as delays in loan sanction and inter-ministerial meetings, the Tribunal determined that the time bar would not prevent the refund. Relying on the earlier order, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, rejecting the Revenue's appeals and allowing the refund to the respondents.

---