2019 (5) TMI 1341 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of duty paid under protest - time limitation - appellant has filed refund within one year from the date of order of the Hon ble Apex Court - HELD THAT - The appellant has filed refund within one year from the date of order of the Hon ble Apex Court. Admittedly, prior to that, the Revenue has challenged the order of classification, in that circumstance, the time limit is to be taken from the date when the Hon ble Supreme Court has settled the issue. Admittedly, the assessee has filed refund claim within one year from the date of order of Hon ble Supreme Court. The refund claim filed by the assessee is in time. Therefore, the refund has rightly been sanctioned by the Commissioner (Appeals). Appropriation of refund - HELD THAT - The demand itself has been set aside by this Tribunal, therefore, the order of appropriation is not sustainable and the same is set aside. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of goods under specific subheading for duty purposes, time limitation for filing refund claim, justification of appropriation of refund against existing demand.

Classification Issue:
The case involved the classification of goods by the assessee-respondent under a specific subheading for duty purposes, leading to the denial of exemption benefits initially. The matter was challenged before the Tribunal, which ruled in favor of the assessee, classifying the goods under a different heading and allowing the exemption benefits. The Revenue's subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed, confirming the Tribunal's decision on classification.

Time Limitation for Refund Claim:
A show cause notice was issued to the assessee-respondent, alleging that the refund claim was time-barred and failed to pass the unjust enrichment test. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the duty was paid under protest and the refund claim was not barred by limitation as it was filed within one year of the Supreme Court's order, which settled the classification issue. The Tribunal upheld this decision, stating that the refund claim was filed within the prescribed time limit.

Appropriation of Refund Against Demand:
The Assistant Commissioner had sanctioned the refund but directed it to be appropriated against an existing demand in another matter. The assessee-respondent appealed this appropriation, arguing that since the demand had been set aside by the Tribunal in a separate case, the appropriation was not justified. The Tribunal agreed, setting aside the appropriation order and allowing the appeal filed by the assessee-respondent.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision on the time limitation for the refund claim and setting aside the appropriation of refund against the demand due to the demand being set aside by the Tribunal in a separate case. The appeal filed by the assessee-respondent was allowed with consequential relief.