2016 (12) TMI 1223 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - time bar - refunf claimed for amount paid initially through CENVAT credit, which was denied and subsequently amount paid in cash - Held that - refund arises only as consequential to the High Court order dated 29/3/2012, therefore as per the sub clause (ec) of clause (b) of Section 11(B)(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944 the relevant date is the date of the order of the High Court - In the present case, Hon ble High Court order was passed on 29/3/2012, the refund claim was filed on 7/3/2013, accordingly refund was filed within one year - the issue whether appellant is required to pay duty from Cenvat credit account or PLA was not settled before the High Court order dated 29/3/2012 therefore there was no occasion for appellant to file any refund claim - claim filed within stipulated time. The matter remanded to the original adjudicating authority with the observation that refund claim is not time bar - appeal allowed by way of refund.

Summary

Issues:
1. Time-barred refund claim filed by the appellant.
2. Double payment of excise duty by the appellant.
3. Interpretation of relevant provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding refund claims.

Issue 1: Time-barred refund claim filed by the appellant:
The appellant filed a refund claim in 2013 for excise duty paid through Cenvat account in 2002-03. The lower authorities rejected the claim as time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, requiring refund claims to be filed within one year from the date of payment. The appellant argued that the refund claim was filed immediately after the cash payment, so it should not be time-barred. The tribunal found that the refund claim was filed within one year of the High Court order, which settled the issue of duty payment method. Thus, the refund claim was not time-barred, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

Issue 2: Double payment of excise duty by the appellant:
The appellant paid excise duty twice - first through Cenvat at clearance and then in cash when a demand was raised. The appellant contended that double charging for the same product is impermissible, and any excess amount paid should be refunded. Citing various judgments, the appellant argued that excess payment should be considered a deposit and refunded. The tribunal acknowledged the double payment and concluded that the duty paid through Cenvat, which was later determined to be payable in cash, should be refunded to the appellant.

Issue 3: Interpretation of relevant provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding refund claims:
The tribunal analyzed the provisions of the Central Excise Act, particularly Section 11B, concerning the time limit for filing refund claims. It emphasized that the relevant date for filing a refund claim was the date of the High Court order settling the duty payment issue. Since the refund claim was filed within one year of this order, it was held to be timely. The tribunal highlighted that the appellant had paid duty twice for the same goods, and once the duty payment method was clarified by the High Court, the duty paid through Cenvat was deemed refundable.

In conclusion, the tribunal allowed the appeal, remanding the matter for fresh adjudication, emphasizing that the refund claim was not time-barred as it was filed within the stipulated period from the date of the High Court order. The tribunal recognized the double payment of duty by the appellant and directed the adjudicating authority to process the refund claim accordingly, granting the appellant a fair opportunity for a fresh adjudication within a specified timeframe.