2017 (8) TMI 890 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - duty paid under protest - time limitation - Held that - the matter was still sub-judice, when the appellant had filed further appeal against the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) before this Tribunal - the Commissioner (Appeals) is correct in holding that the payment of the amount on 16/06/2003 was by way of revenue deposit, in absence of there being any adjudicated or admitted dues - Commissioner (Appeals) is right in holding that the amount was paid under protest, as the respondents have been continuously agitating the demand before the higher forums - refund allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the refund claim filed by the respondent-assessee is time-barred due to non-payment under protest?
2. Whether the duty was paid under protest, justifying the refund claim?
3. Whether the appellant is entitled to the refund of the amount?

Analysis:
1. The issue in this appeal revolves around the time-barred refund claim filed by the respondent-assessee. The appellant contends that the duty was not paid under protest, as required by CBEC's Excise Manual of supplementary instructions. The refund was filed more than 12 months after the Order-in-Appeal dated 28/04/2005, raising concerns about the timeliness of the claim.

2. The central question is whether the duty was indeed paid under protest. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the payment made by the respondent was a revenue deposit, not a duty deposit, as there were no confirmed or outstanding dues at the time of payment. The Commissioner relied on the Supreme Court ruling stating that payment under protest is a natural course of action when contesting liability. The Tribunal upheld this finding, emphasizing the continuous contestation of the demand by the respondents in higher forums.

3. The final issue addresses the entitlement of the appellant to the refund of the amount. The Tribunal concluded that the duty was paid under protest, and the respondents are entitled to the refund of ?12,50,000, subject to any balance dues adjustment based on the Tribunal's previous order. The adjudicating authority was directed to process the refund within 45 days from the date of the order, along with applicable interest as per Rules.

In summary, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the revenue, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals) decision that the duty was paid under protest, justifying the refund claim by the respondent-assessee. The judgment highlights the importance of procedural adherence and legal principles governing refund claims in excise matters.