2016 (12) TMI 725 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - time bar - Held that - In this case it is admitted position that the respondent paid the duty during the course of investigation after clearance of the goods and not recovered of any duty from the buyers. The sole ground in the appeal filed of the Revenue is that the refund claim is barred by the limitation. In fact, the issue of liability was settled by this Tribunal vide Final Order No. 810/04-B dated 27.09.2004, thereafter, the respondent has filed refund claim of 10.11.2004 on receipt of the order to this Tribunal. In that circumstances, We hold that the refund claim has been filed by the respondent within time and the same has been entertained by the adjudicating authority below in favor of the respondent - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue-appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against impugned order
- Payment of duty without recovery from buyers
- Refund claim barred by limitation

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHANDIGARH was lodged by the Revenue against an impugned order regarding a case where the respondent cleared goods in excess of the permitted quantity without paying proper duty. The respondent also did not pay the Additional duty of Excise on certain items for home consumption. An investigation led to the respondent paying a sum of ?17,96,926. The Tribunal had previously set aside the demand for goods cleared by the respondent to DTA, allowing the benefit of certain notifications. Subsequently, the respondent filed a refund claim for the duty paid during the investigation, which the adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (A) approved. The Revenue challenged this approval on grounds of limitation.

During the hearing, it was acknowledged that the respondent paid duty post-clearance but did not recover it from buyers. The Revenue's main contention was that the refund claim was time-barred. However, the Tribunal noted that the issue of liability had been resolved in a prior order, following which the respondent filed the refund claim within a reasonable timeframe. Consequently, the Tribunal found no fault in the adjudicating authority's decision to entertain the refund claim in favor of the respondent. As a result, the impugned order was upheld, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.