2014 (9) TMI 478 - HC - Central Excise

Denial of refund claim - Bar of limitation - Held that - In order to maintain a claim for refund in terms of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, any person claiming refund of any duty of excise and interest, if any, paid on such duty, may make an application for refund of such duty and interest before the expiry of six months from the relevant date, in the manner prescribed and the application should be accompanied by such documents or other evidence to establish that the duty of excise has been paid. Second Proviso to Section 11B(1) provides that the limitation of six months shall not apply where any duty of excise has been paid under protest. On the facts noted above, admittedly, the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of Second Proviso to Section 11B(1). The relevant date for the purpose of this case, is the one as defined under Section 11B(5) Explanation (B)(e), which states that the relevant date shall be, in the case of a person other than the manufacturer, the date of purchase of goods by such person. Thus, the definition of relevant date clearly stares against the case of the appellant and as rightly held by the Tribunal, the claim for refund is only barred by limitation. Accordingly, no ground is made out to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Entitlement to claim benefit of a court decision in a refund claim.
2. Whether the refund claim is time-barred.
3. Issue of unjust enrichment.

Analysis:
1. The appellant purchased sugantha supari and paid duty under protest. The Assistant Commissioner vacated the protest, making the payment final. A refund claim was filed in 1999, citing a court decision. The claim was rejected, stating the appellant cannot benefit from the court decision. The Commissioner allowed the appeal, but the Revenue appealed to the Tribunal. The Tribunal framed three questions, including the entitlement to the court decision's benefit.

2. The Tribunal found the refund claim time-barred as it was filed in 1999 for duty paid in 1994-95. The Revenue's appeal was allowed on this preliminary issue, setting aside the Commissioner's order. The appellant appealed, raising substantial questions of law related to limitation and payment under protest.

3. Section 11B of the Central Excise Act requires refund claims within six months from the relevant date, unless duty was paid under protest. The Tribunal held the appellant not entitled to the protest provision. The relevant date for the appellant was the date of purchase, making the claim time-barred. The Tribunal's decision was upheld, dismissing the appeal due to the limitation issue. The judgment emphasized the importance of complying with statutory provisions for refund claims.