2016 (10) TMI 730 - AT - Central Excise

Rejection of refund claim - reversal of CENVAT credit under protest - period of limitation bar u/s 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that - There is no murmur or protest or disagreement with the view taken by the inspecting officers as can be inferred from this letter. It further emerges that the appellant has taken a stand before the Department that the reversal of Cenvat credit was under protest only at the time of filing the refund claims for the first time on 22/12/2000 as well as 15/1/2001. I see from the records that these refund claims were incomplete and have been resubmitted after rectifying the same on a subsequent date. It is seen from the record that the appellant has already been sanctioned the refund for reversals done considering these two dates as the relevant dates - rejection of refund claim justified - appeal disposed off - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claims filed under protest - Reversal of Cenvat credits - Barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Date of discovery of mistake - Correspondence with Department - Genuine reversal or under protest.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in compliance with the Tribunal's remand order. The dispute revolved around refund claims filed by the appellant for the reversal of Cenvat credits made during a specific period. The appellant claimed that the reversals were made under protest on the instructions of Departmental officers during a factory visit. The Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that the reversals were made by the appellant on their own, thus barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Upon reconsideration, the appellant referred to an order-in-original highlighting that reversals were made only after being pointed out by the Department. The appellant argued that the reversals should be considered as made under protest, citing relevant High Court decisions. The Tribunal's remand order had already allowed the benefit of considering the refund claims filed on specific dates by the appellant.

During the hearing, the appellant presented a letter referencing the factory inspection where the reversals were made. The Department raised doubts about the letter's authenticity due to the absence of a date. The Tribunal's remand order aimed to determine the date of mistake detection by the appellant based on their correspondence with the Department. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the appellant failed to provide any documentary evidence supporting the claim of reversals made under protest.

The Commissioner upheld the impugned order, stating that the refund claims were filed on specific dates and already sanctioned accordingly. Without additional documentary proof, the Commissioner found no reason to interfere with the order, leading to the rejection of the appeal.