2004 (1) TMI 143 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claims filed beyond the limitation period under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.
2. Validity of protest for the purpose of Section 11B.
3. Applicability of unjust enrichment to refund claims where duty was paid under protest.

Analysis:

1. The appellants filed two refund claims for duty paid under protest on "Spent Catalyst." The first claim was for Rs. 1,21,871, filed beyond the limitation period, and the second claim was for Rs. 12,355, filed within time. The jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner rejected both claims, citing limitation and unjust enrichment. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejections, leading to the present appeals.

2. The appellants contended that their declaration of goods as non-excisable and payment under protest should be considered valid protest under Section 11B. However, the absence of a formal protest letter as per Rule 233B was noted. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. UOI, emphasizing the need for compliance with Rule 233B for a valid protest. The endorsement on invoices did not meet this requirement, leading to the dismissal of the first refund claim.

3. The appellants argued against the application of unjust enrichment to refund claims where duty was paid under protest. Citing Supreme Court decisions, they claimed that such claims were not barred by unjust enrichment. However, the Tribunal referenced Mafatlal Industries and subsequent interpretations to assert that the bar of unjust enrichment applied even when duty was paid under protest. As the appellants had received payment including duty from customers, both refund claims were deemed subject to unjust enrichment, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals) orders.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, upholding the rejection of refund claims due to being time-barred and subject to unjust enrichment. The judgment reaffirmed the importance of complying with procedural requirements for valid protests and clarified the application of unjust enrichment to refund claims involving duty paid under protest.