2007 (4) TMI 333 - AT - Service Tax

Refund- Limitation- The importer claimed the classification under sub-heading 3823.90 and the Assistant Commissioner approved it under 3403. Commissioner (Appeals) relying on judgment of Mafatlal Industries Ltd., holding that duty paid in cases which finally ended in order/decree/judgment of courts must be deemed to have been paid under protest and limitation will not apply in such cases. Held that-reliance placed on ratio of Apex Court judgment well founded. No other grounds raised. Revenue s appeal against grant of refund rejected.

Summary

Issues:
Department's appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding refund claim; Time bar and unjust enrichment in the case of refund claim by the respondent.

Analysis:
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad, heard the Department's appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding a refund claim. The respondent had imported waste oil with a classification dispute, claiming it under sub-heading 3823.90 while the Assistant Commissioner approved it under 3403. After litigation, the classification under Heading 3403 was upheld, but the demand for additional duty of Customs was set aside. The importer filed a refund claim, which was rejected by the original authority but deemed admissible by the Commissioner (Appeals) who held that time bar and unjust enrichment were not applicable. The Department challenged this decision, arguing against the time bar aspect. The Commissioner (Appeals) based his decision on the judgment in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd., stating that the time bar aspect would not apply in this scenario.

The Commissioner (Appeals) found the importer eligible for the refund and directed the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner to calculate the actual amount due. He also determined that interest would be payable from a specific date. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, stating that the reliance on the Mafatlal Industries Ltd. judgment was well-founded. As the Department did not raise any other grounds challenging the order, the Tribunal rejected the Department's appeal. The judgment was pronounced in open court, affirming the decision in favor of the respondent.