2005 (3) TMI 494 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Refund claim allowed by Commissioner (Appeals) - Payment under protest procedure not followed - Applicability of limitation period - Duty paid under protest - Interpretation of Section 11B

Refund Claim Allowed by Commissioner (Appeals):
The judgment revolves around the dispute of a refund claim allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in favor of the respondents. The Revenue-Appellant argued that the refund was wrongly permitted as the payment under protest procedure was not adhered to by the respondents. The appellant contended that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was improper and incorrect, emphasizing the necessity of following the prescribed Rules for duty payment under protest. On the other hand, the respondents, represented by Shri Das, maintained that the deposit made after the show-cause notice issuance constituted payment under protest and was not constrained by the limitation clause. This argument was supported by citing various legal precedents.

Applicability of Limitation Period - Duty Paid Under Protest:
The judgment delves into the interpretation of the limitation period concerning duty paid under protest. The Tribunal examined the case law of Maihar Cement v. CCE, Bhopal, which established that duty paid after the issuance of a show-cause notice, and subsequently decided in favor of the taxpayer, qualifies as a deposit made under protest. Consequently, the claim for a refund of such an amount is not restricted by the limitation period. In the present case, the respondents reversed the Modvat credit following the show-cause notices received, leading the Tribunal to conclude that the limitation period did not apply. The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) that Section 11B was inapplicable to the case, ultimately dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue.

In conclusion, the judgment provides a detailed analysis of the issues surrounding the refund claim, the payment under protest procedure, and the interpretation of the limitation period for duty paid under protest. The legal principles established in previous cases were crucial in determining the outcome of the appeal, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal based on the findings that the payment made by the respondents constituted a deposit under protest and was not subject to the limitation period as per Section 11B.