2018 (2) TMI 697 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - duty paid under protest - time limitation - Held that - the provisions of Section11B provide a period of one year, for claiming refund, from the relevant date. The relevant date also stands prescribed in the said Section. However, if the duties have been paid under protest, the period of one year is not applicable - matter remanded for reconsideration - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim denial based on non-party status to High Court decision.
2. Refund claim rejection on grounds of time bar.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in sugar manufacturing, faced duty payment issues regarding baggasse & press mud clearance. An audit objection led to a duty payment directive based on a circular, later quashed by the Allahabad High Court. The appellant sought a refund post the High Court decision, but the claim was initially denied due to non-party status. The Commissioner (Appeals) disagreed, stating that irrespective of party status, the benefit of the High Court judgment should apply.

2. The refund claim was also challenged on time bar grounds, as it was filed after one year from the High Court judgment date. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this rejection, citing limitation rules under Section 11B for refund claims. The appellant argued that the payment was made under protest, exempting it from the one-year limitation period. The Tribunal noted that if payments are made under protest, the one-year period may not apply. Since the protest claim's factual verification was necessary, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority for further review and decision.