2015 (12) TMI 1441 - AT - Central Excise

Claim of refund of excess interest (@24% instead of @13%) paid on differential duty - Bar of limitation - Held that - Admittedly the refund application filed by the appellant on 08.04.2009 is beyond the period of limitation. The appellant s contention is that they had challenged the earlier order of finalization and the Commissioner (Appeals) had directed them to file a refund claim instead of challenging the rate of interest. Inasmuch as they have filed refund application within a period of one year from the date of the order of Commissioner (Appeals), the same has to be treated as having been filed within the limitation period - appellate authority has observed that if the payment of interest is erroneous on the part of the assessee they can file refund claim within the normal period of one year. There is nothing in the said observation or finding of Commissioner (Appeals) to suggest that the period of one year would start running from the date of passing of the order. There is also no provision of law to that effect. If the appellant was aggrieved with the said order of Commissioner (Appeals) in deciding on the correct rate of interest, they could have challenged the same. In fact, the appeal was filed before the Tribunal, but the same was subsequently withdrawn, thus allowing the said order of Commissioner (Appeals) to attain finality. - refund application having been filed beyond the period of one year from the relevant day, has to rejected as barred by limitation - Decided against Assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Refund of excess interest paid by the appellant.
2. Bar on refund application due to limitation period.

Analysis:
Issue 1: Refund of excess interest paid by the appellant
The appellant requested provisional clearances of petroleum products through coastal tankers during 2005-06 and 2006-07. The Assistant Commissioner finalized the provisional assessment, directing the appellant to pay differential duty and interest. The appellant challenged the assessment before the Commissioner (Appeals) claiming they were not liable to pay interest and had overpaid. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the claim, stating interest was correctly charged and advised the appellant to file a refund claim if they believed the interest payment was erroneous. The appellant withdrew their appeal before the Tribunal. Subsequently, the appellant sought a refund of interest paid, which was partially granted by the Assistant Commissioner. The Revenue appealed this decision, arguing the refund application was time-barred.

Issue 2: Bar on refund application due to limitation period
The Commissioner (Appeals) held the refund application beyond the one-year limitation period from the date of payment, thus rejecting the refund claim. The appellant contended that the one-year period should commence from the date of the Commissioner (Appeals) order, not the original payment date. However, the Tribunal upheld the decision, stating that the refund application must be filed within one year from the actual payment date, and the limitation period cannot be extended by the Revenue authorities or the Tribunal. As the appellant's refund application was filed after the one-year period from the relevant date, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, affirming the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals).

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund application due to being time-barred, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the statutory limitation period for filing refund claims.