2017 (6) TMI 1140 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - rejection on the ground of time limitation - Held that - the amount of ₹ 47,49,715/- paid under protest by appellant on 22/03/2006 was not towards any duty adjudged against the appellant by any competent authority. The said amount was neither the duty liability arising out of manufacture nor arising out of any confirmed demand. Therefore, the said amount was Revenue deposit with Revenue. Since the demand raised in respect of said issue amounting to ₹ 48,90,461/- does not survive, the exchequer does not have right to keep the said amount with it - refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim filed after the expiry of the limitation period.
2. Admissibility of Cenvat credit on inputs.
3. Payment made under protest for duty liability.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Refund claim limitation
The appellant, M/s Saf Yeast Co. Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No.105-CE/LKO/2009 dated 11/05/2009, contending that the refund claim was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the grounds of being time-barred. The appellant argued that their goods were fully exempted under Notification No.3/2006-CE dated 01/03/2006. They paid an amount under protest on 22/03/2006 and subsequently applied for a refund. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the refund claim was filed after the expiry of one year from the relevant date, rendering it hit by limitation. The Tribunal, after considering the contentions, found that the appellant was entitled to the refund as the demand raised did not survive, and directed the Jurisdictional Commissioner to ensure payment of the refund amount within 30 days.

Issue 2: Admissibility of Cenvat credit
The appellant also faced a Show Cause Notice directing them to reverse Cenvat credit attributable to inputs. The Tribunal, through Final Order No.70096/2017 dated 16/01/2017, held that the Cenvat credit availed on inputs was admissible to the appellant. The amount paid under protest was considered part of the admissible credit, leading to the conclusion that the appellant was entitled to the refund.

Issue 3: Payment under protest
The appellant had paid an amount under protest towards a liability imposed by the Superintendent of Central Excise (Preventive). The Tribunal determined that this payment was not towards any duty adjudged against the appellant, as it was not a duty liability arising from manufacture or any confirmed demand. As the demand no longer existed due to the Tribunal's previous order, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and directed the refund of the amount paid under protest.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing that the appellant was entitled to the refund despite the limitation period, based on the admissibility of Cenvat credit and the nature of the payment made under protest.