2017 (4) TMI 31 - AT - Central Excise

Refund - eligibility of respondent for refund from 1-2-2001 - Revenue s case is that the respondent did not follow the procedure u/r 233B of erstwhile CER, 1944 and hence, the claim for refund is time-barred - Held that - Rule 233B was in Central Excise Rules, 1944. The said provision is not available in Central Excise Rules, 2001/2002 as such the elaborate procedure under Rule 233B do not cover the substantial period in dispute. Further, in view of the clear finding by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding protest made by the respondent for allowing refund from 1-2-2001 which is not factually rebutted by the Revenue, we find no reason to interfere with the above finding - appeal rejected - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues involved: Eligibility of respondent for refund from 1-2-2001 based on the application of Rule 233B of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI was filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Bhopal, dated 26-6-2008. The central issue in this case was the eligibility of the respondent for a refund from 1-2-2001. The Revenue contended that the respondent failed to comply with the procedure under Rule 233B of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944, rendering the refund claim time-barred. The Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed the refund from 1-2-2001 based on the respondent's filing of the RT-12 return for January 2001, which conveyed the payment of excise duty under protest under Rule 233B.

Upon hearing both parties and examining the appeal records, the Tribunal found that the Revenue's argument that Rule 233B applied for the period 2000-01 to 2006-07 was factually incorrect. Rule 233B belonged to the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and was not present in the Central Excise Rules of 2001/2002. Since the elaborate procedure under Rule 233B did not cover the substantial period in dispute, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s finding regarding the respondent's protest for refund from 1-2-2001. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue's attempt to apply Rule 233B for the entire disputed period contradicted the applicable legal provisions, as the 1944 Rules had been replaced in 2001. Additionally, the impugned order confirmed the existence of the respondent's protest, further supporting the decision to reject the appeal. The Tribunal concluded by dismissing the appeal, along with the miscellaneous application and C.O., on 8-11-2016.

In summary, the Tribunal's decision hinged on the incorrect application of Rule 233B by the Revenue for the disputed period, the absence of the said rule in the relevant Central Excise Rules, and the Commissioner (Appeals)'s established record of the respondent's protest justifying the refund eligibility from 1-2-2001. The Tribunal's ruling emphasized the necessity of aligning legal arguments with the applicable provisions and factual findings to determine the validity of refund claims under the relevant rules and time constraints.