2008 (9) TMI 320 - HC - Central Excise

Duty paid under protest marking on Invoice and ER-1 return - refund claimed - during the period in dispute, the relevant invoices and ER-1 returns filed would show that they were marked with the endorsement duty paid under protest - ground of non-forwarding of a letter as contended by the Department would not be of any significance - It does not mean that the claim for refund is ex facie not maintainable - refund is allowed subject to the provision of unjust enrichment.

Summary

Issues:
Claim for refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 based on duty paid under protest.

The judgment by the High Court of Bombay involved a claim for refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, based on duty paid under protest. The Tribunal noted that the respondent-Assessee had marked relevant invoices and returns with "duty paid under protest." The appellant argued that the Assessee had not written any letter to the Department about paying duty under protest, contrary to the marking on the forms. The Court held that the marking on the forms was significant, and the absence of a letter did not invalidate the claim for refund. The Tribunal's decision to direct the Authority to process the claim was upheld, emphasizing the need to consider whether the burden had been passed on to the consumer.

The High Court found that the Tribunal's conclusions were specific to the facts of the case and did not raise any substantial question of law for consideration. As the Tribunal's decision was based on factual findings supported by evidence, the Court declined to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 35G of the Act. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded in the case.