2017 (3) TMI 548 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - time limitation - whether the amount of ₹ 3,03,525/- paid on 15.05.2003 under protest is a not hit by limitation, when the refund was claimed in the year 2008? - Held that - the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has decided the issue in favor of the Appellant in the year 2004, which enabled the Appellant to file refund claim within the period prescribed u/s 11B of CEA, 1944. It is immaterial whether the Revenue had filed the Appeal against the order of the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals). The Appellant had not filed any claim after the said favorable decision in the year 2004, but it was filed only in the year 2008 - the refund claim is barred by limitation - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Refund claim of duty deposited during certain periods
- Barred by limitation under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944

Detailed Analysis:
The appeals before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad were filed against orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), C. Ex. & S. Tax, Surat, related to refund claims of duty deposited during specific periods. The Appellant claimed refunds of amounts deposited during proceedings initiated against them in 2002-2003. The Commissioner (Appeals) had initially decided in favor of the Appellant in 2004, but the proceedings concluded in 2008 after the Revenue's appeals were dismissed by the Tribunal. The Appellant subsequently claimed refunds in 2008, which were denied by the Revenue, leading to the imposition of penalties. The key issue was whether the refund claims were barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

The Appellant argued that they were entitled to the refund without a formal application since the issue was decided in their favor by the Commissioner (Appeals) in 2004, and the entire proceedings concluded in 2008 after the Tribunal's dismissal of Revenue's appeals. On the other hand, the Revenue contended that the Appellant had not filed any claim after the favorable decision in 2004, and the three-year period for filing a claim under Section 11B had lapsed. The Revenue argued that the limitation period should run from the conclusion of proceedings in favor of the Assessee, citing the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a specific case.

The Tribunal carefully considered both arguments and focused on whether the amount paid under protest in 2003 was barred by limitation when the refund was claimed in 2008. The Appellant's argument that the payment under protest exempted it from the limitation period was countered by the Revenue, citing the Supreme Court's decision that the limitation period starts after the conclusion of proceedings in favor of the Assessee. As the Appellant had not filed any claim after the favorable decision in 2004 but only in 2008, the Tribunal concluded that the refund claim was indeed barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Consequently, the appeals were found to be devoid of merit and dismissed.

In summary, the judgment focused on the issue of whether the refund claims for duty deposited during specific periods were barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal ruled that the claims filed in 2008, after a favorable decision in 2004, were indeed time-barred, following the precedent set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the limitation period starting after the conclusion of proceedings in favor of the Assessee.