2012 (11) TMI 604 - AT - Central Excise

Refund Held that - No dispute about the eligibility of refund on merits - refund claim was filed by the appellant within the period of limitation - protest letter was filed by the appellant at the time of original payment of duty by the manufacturer of the goods - denial of refund claim is not at all warranted refund allowed

Summary

Issues:
1. Entitlement to benefit of Notification No. 22/2003-C.E.
2. Refund claim filed within the limitation period.
3. Discrepancy in the date of filing the refund claim.
4. Consideration of protest letter in relation to limitation period for refund.

Analysis:

1. The appellant, a 100% EOU, was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 22/2003-C.E., allowing duty-free procurement against CT-3 services. The Commissioner suspended this facility, but the Tribunal set aside the order, and subsequently, the High Court held the suspension order as without jurisdiction. The Commissioner later restored the CT-3 procurement facility.

2. The appellant purchased goods from M/s. Havells India Ltd. on payment of duty, and a refund claim of Rs. 58,114/- was filed within one year of duty payment. Although the claim was forwarded to another office, it was within the limitation period from the date of duty payment, as argued by the appellant.

3. The Commissioner (Appeals) disagreed, stating that the date of receipt by the Alwar office should be considered for the limitation period, not the filing date with the Hapur Commissionerate. The Commissioner also dismissed the relevance of the protest letter, leading to the denial of the refund claim.

4. The Tribunal found no dispute regarding the eligibility for refund or the timely filing of the first claim. It was noted that the protest letter was submitted at the time of original duty payment, indicating the appellant's objection. Consequently, the denial of the refund claim was deemed unwarranted, and the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision was set aside, restoring the original adjudicating authority's order in favor of the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing the correctness of the appellant's actions in filing the refund claim within the limitation period and submitting a protest letter at the time of duty payment, ultimately leading to the restoration of the refund claim.