2017 (9) TMI 689 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of amount paid subsequent to the passing of the order-in-appeal - time limitation - Section 11B - Held that - The period of 1 year provided u/s 11B should be taken from the date of payment of the duty and not from the date of the order-in-appeal, as the refund is against the amount paid subsequent to the passing of the order-in-appeal - all facts has not been verified properly by both the authorities below - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim rejection on grounds of time bar.
2. Interpretation of the period for filing refund claim.
3. Verification of facts by authorities.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a refund claim rejection on the grounds of being time-barred. The appellant had made payments exceeding the confirmed duties after the order-in-appeal reducing the demand. The refund claim was rejected based on the contention that it should have been filed within one year from the date of the Commissioner (Appeals) order. The issue raised was whether the refund claim was indeed time-barred.

2. The appellate tribunal considered the interpretation of the period for filing a refund claim. It was observed that certain amounts were paid subsequent to the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), and for such excess amounts over the total dues confirmed, the appellant was entitled to a refund. The tribunal emphasized that the period of one year for filing the refund claim should be calculated from the date of payment of duty, not from the date of the order-in-appeal that reduced the demand. The tribunal found that the authorities had not properly verified all the facts in this regard.

3. The tribunal highlighted the importance of verifying all relevant facts by the authorities involved. It was noted that the appellant had paid amounts exceeding the confirmed duties, and the refund claim rejection was not in line with the correct interpretation of the law. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision on the refund claim, instructing them to consider the observations made regarding the period for filing the claim. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the need for a proper assessment based on the observations provided.