2000 (9) TMI 163 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claims filed by the appellants being rejected as time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The case involved the appellants who had paid sums of money in compliance with orders from the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise Division, Kota. Subsequently, the CEGAT issued final orders setting aside certain demands while confirming others. Following these orders, the appellants filed refund claims. However, the Department issued Show Cause Notices questioning the timeliness of these claims under Section 11B. The Assistant Commissioner later dropped the proceedings and sanctioned the refunds, relying on legal precedents such as the Supreme Court's decision in Mafatlal Industries v. Union of India and a Tribunal decision in M/s. Wazir Steel Industries v. CCE. Appeals were then filed by the Department before the Commissioner (Appeals) challenging the refund sanctions. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the duty deposited during the appellate process could not be considered as duty paid under protest, thus deeming the refund claims time-barred under Section 11B.

The appellants, represented by their advocate, relied on legal precedents in their defense, including the Apex Court decision in Mafatlal and a Tribunal decision in M/s. General Engineering Works v. CCE, Jaipur. The Judge Advocate for the Department reiterated the lower appellate authority's findings. Upon careful consideration, the appellate judge noted discrepancies in the lower authority's reasoning, especially in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Mafatlal Industries. The judge highlighted a specific portion of the judgment emphasizing that duty paid under protest should be deemed compliant with the requirements of Section 11B(2) of the Excise Act. Additionally, reference was made to the Tribunal's decision in a similar case where the time limit under Section 11B was not applicable due to pending appellate proceedings.

Ultimately, the appellate judge found the lower authority's order unsustainable and set it aside. Notably, the judge observed that the Department had not raised the issue of 'Unjust enrichment' at any stage of the proceedings, rendering it irrelevant to the case. As a result, the appeal was allowed, overturning the decision that rejected the refund claims as time-barred under Section 11B.