2016 (10) TMI 456 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - clearance of final product by way of stock transfer - period from April 1994 to September 1996 - ground of limitation - Held that - The refund claim was filed by the appellant on 23.9.2005 and the amount was also not paid under protest. The refund claim filed on 23.9.2005 i.e. beyond the limitation period as provided under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - appeal rejected. Refund claim filed for the period 29.9.1996 to 24.10.1996 - unjust enrichment - Held that - The C.A. certificate produced by the appellant clearly states that the amounts were paid by the appellant from their own funds and have not been recovered from anyone. The Chartered Accountant has categorically recorded that the amounts paid in the case in hand in this period has not been recovered from anyone - refund claim rightly rejected. Appeal disposed off - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues: Refund claim rejection based on limitation and unjust enrichment.

Analysis:
1. Refund Claim for April 1994 to September 1996:
The appellant claimed a refund for this period, but it was rejected on the grounds of limitation and non-protest payment. The first appellate authority rejected the claim as the appellant had paid the duty without protest. The Tribunal had previously ruled in favor of the appellant that the additional duty paid was not required. However, the refund claim was filed on 23.9.2005, beyond the limitation period under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the first appellate authority's decision due to the late filing of the claim. Consequently, the appeal for this period was rejected based on the limitation issue.

2. Refund Claim for 29.9.1996 to 24.10.1996:
In this period, the refund claim was rejected solely on the ground of unjust enrichment. The appellant presented a Chartered Accountant's certificate stating that the amounts were paid from their own funds and not recovered from anyone. The certificate detailed the examination of relevant records leading to the conclusion that no recovery was made. The Tribunal found this evidence compelling and determined that the lower authority's decision based on unjust enrichment was incorrect. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the rejection of the refund claim for this period. The appeals were disposed of accordingly, with the Tribunal ruling in favor of the appellant based on the evidence provided by the Chartered Accountant.

This judgment highlights the importance of timely filing refund claims within the prescribed limitation period and the significance of providing concrete evidence to refute allegations of unjust enrichment. The Tribunal's decision underscores the necessity of thorough documentation and expert opinions to support refund claims in excise duty matters.