2014 (3) TMI 88 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of refund claim - Original TR-6 challan not produced - Bar of limitation - Held that - As clarified by the CBEC Circular dated 02.01.2002 that attested Xerox copy of the Challan in Form T.R. 6 is sufficient and there is no requirement to file the original TR-6 challan. Same view has been confirmed by the Hon ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Narayan Nambiar Meloths (2009 (3) TMI 468 - KERALA HIGH COURT). In view of the above reasons, I direct the adjudicating authority to allow the claim for refund of the amount made by the appellant - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of refund claim for non-submission of original TR 6 challan.

Analysis:
The appellant appealed against an order denying their refund claim due to the absence of the original TR 6 challan. Initially, a demand of Rs. 18,50,675/- along with interest and a penalty of Rs. 2,500/- were imposed. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the stay application, leading the appellant to deposit Rs. 5,00,000/- under protest for the appeal hearing. Subsequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remanded the matter for recalculation. Following this, the appellant filed a refund claim for the pre-deposited amount, which was rejected for lack of original TR-6 challans, prompting the current appeal.

The appellant's consultant argued that a CBEC Circular and a High Court judgment supported the submission of attested Xerox copies of the TR-6 challan for refunds, negating the requirement for originals. On the contrary, the Revenue's representative contended that duty paid under protest need not be refunded, citing a precedent. The Tribunal considered both arguments and found that the denial of the refund claim was solely based on the absence of the original TR-6 challan, not on time bar grounds. The Tribunal differentiated the current case from the precedent cited by the Revenue, emphasizing that the payment made by the appellant was a pre-deposit for the appeal hearing, not duty paid under protest. Referring to the CBEC Circular and the High Court judgment, the Tribunal concluded that attested Xerox copies sufficed for refund claims, directing the adjudicating authority to process the appellant's refund within 30 days.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal, overturning the denial of the refund claim due to the non-submission of the original TR-6 challan. The decision was based on the clarification provided by the CBEC Circular and supported by a High Court judgment, establishing that attested Xerox copies of the TR-6 challan were acceptable for refund purposes. The Tribunal's ruling emphasized the distinction between a pre-deposit for appeal hearings and duty paid under protest, ensuring the appellant's right to claim a refund for the amount deposited.