2014 (3) TMI 556 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of refund claim - Duty under protest - Bar of limitation - Held that - respondents have made it clear that the duty is paid on provisional basis and reserved the right to make refund claim on determination of the value. Further, while making payment, in the statutory records also the respondents had specifically mentioned that the payment is made under protest. In the monthly returns filed by the respondent also, this fact is mentioned. In these circumstances, we find no infirmity in the impugned order whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the refund is not time barred - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Time limitation on refund claim for duty paid under protest.
2. Compliance with Rule 233(b) of the Central Excise Rules for refund.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the time limitation on the refund claim of duty paid under protest by the respondent. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that since the duty was paid under protest, the refund claim is not time-barred. The respondents, engaged in manufacturing medicines, cleared physician's samples, and faced issues regarding the valuation of these samples. The respondents protested and started paying duty, subsequently filing a refund claim. The adjudicating authority allowed the refund within the limitation period but rejected claims beyond it. The Commissioner (Appeals) considered evidence showing the respondents' protest through a letter, PLA debit entries, and monthly returns, concluding that the duty paid under protest justified the refund claim within the time limit.

2. The Revenue contended that the respondents did not adhere to the procedure under Rule 233(b) of the Central Excise Rules, leading to the refund being time-barred. However, upon reviewing the evidence, the Tribunal found that the respondents clearly indicated the provisional nature of duty payment and their intention to claim a refund upon value determination. The respondents explicitly stated the protest in statutory records and monthly returns. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, dismissing the appeal and affirming that the refund claim was not time-barred due to the duty being paid under protest.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, emphasizing that the duty paid under protest by the respondents justified the refund claim within the time limitation, as evidenced by the clear indication of protest in various documents. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, and the refund claim was deemed valid.