2007 (10) TMI 181 - AT - Central Excise

Credit wrongly reversed under protest as was directed by the Superintendent - refund claim was filed by them on direction of the authorities (letter of the Superintendent) - the letter of the Superintendent directing the appellant to file a refund claim is the date on which the appellant was made aware that refund claim is required to be filed - inability of the Range Officer to give proper direction to the appellant at the first instance cannot be held against them refund not time-barred

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Time-barred refund claim based on excess Cenvat Credit reversal during 2004-2005.
2. Validity of refund claim filed under direction of Superintendent of Central Excise.
3. Authority of Superintendent to direct refund claims.
4. Consideration of time bar from the perspective of directions given by Range Officer.
5. Application of legal precedent regarding time-barred refund claims.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeal was against the rejection of a refund claim due to being time-barred for the excess Cenvat Credit reversal during 2004-2005. The appellant claimed they followed directions from authorities, while the department argued the refund was time-barred. The adjudicating authority and Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection, leading to the appeal.

2. The appellant's advocate argued that the Cenvat Credit reversal was done under the Superintendent's direction, citing a letter from the Superintendent as evidence. The advocate contended that since the action was taken based on official direction, the refund claim was timely filed, challenging the time-bar argument.

3. The department's representative (SDR) contested the Superintendent's authority to direct refund claims, emphasizing that such directions do not bind the department. The SDR relied on the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) findings to support the rejection of the refund claim.

4. The Tribunal considered the Range Officer's direction to the appellant regarding the excess payment and subsequent refund claim filing. The Tribunal referred to a legal precedent where a similar situation was analyzed, emphasizing that if an assessing officer fails to act on a request for credit, the subsequent refund claim should not be time-barred. The Tribunal highlighted that the appellant's refund claim filing date should be construed from the date of the Superintendent's direction.

5. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order rejecting the refund claim as time-barred, stating that the appellant's claim was within the time limit. However, as the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) did not address the issue of unjust enrichment, the matter was remanded for reconsideration solely on that aspect, with the appeal allowed for remand on this limited issue.