9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (4) TMI 489 - AT - Central ExciseRefund claim - duty paid under protest - time limitation - Held that - whatever duty was paid under protest for any reason the period of limitation of one year for filing refund provided under Section 11B does not apply. The section does not stipulate any other period in case of duty paid under protest therefore revenue cannot create a particular period in case where duty is paid under protest - identical issue decided in the case of MADURA COATS PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE MADURAI 2010 (8) TMI 502 - CESTAT CHENNAI where even though the Commissioner(Appeals) dropped demand vide order dated 12-5-1998 refund claim was filed on 26-3-2002. Tribunal finally decided Revenue s appeal on 30-5-2003 therefore only because of the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) had dropped the demand the assesee filed refund even after four years of dropping of the demand refund was held not to be time bar - The identical facts is involved in the present case also therefore ratio of the above judgment squarely applicable in the present case - refund filed by the respondent is not time bar therefore they are legally entitle for the refund - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues involved:
1. Valuation of goods for refund claim under Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. 2. Time bar for filing refund claim. 3. Duty payment under protest and its impact on the limitation period for filing a refund claim. Issue 1: Valuation of goods for refund claim under Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000: The case involved the respondent, engaged in the manufacture of welding electrodes and flux cored wire, who had another unit where goods were removed for job work and captively consumed. The respondent filed a refund claim for the differential duty based on valuation under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. The Revenue issued show cause notices proposing denial of the refund on the grounds of valuation and time bar. The Commissioner(Appeals) allowed the appeal, stating that duty was paid under protest, hence the limitation of one year did not apply. However, the Revenue appealed against this decision. Issue 2: Time bar for filing refund claim: The Revenue contended that the refund claim was time-barred, as the Commissioner(Appeals) had based the decision on an order from 2004, ignoring other proceedings where a refund was rejected but later allowed. The Tribunal found that the issue was no longer under dispute after a certain date, and the duty paid should have prompted the respondent to file the refund claim within one year from the date of payment. The Tribunal analyzed the sequence of events and concluded that the refund was indeed time-barred. Issue 3: Duty payment under protest and its impact on the limitation period for filing a refund claim: The respondent argued that the duty was paid under protest, which exempted the refund claim from the one-year limitation period. The Tribunal examined relevant provisions and cited precedents to support the argument that when duty is paid under protest, the limitation of one year for filing a refund does not apply. The Tribunal referred to a similar case involving duty payment pending appeal, where the refund claim was not considered time-barred. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal and ruling in favor of the respondent's entitlement to the refund. In conclusion, the judgment addressed issues related to the valuation of goods for refund claims, the time bar for filing refund claims, and the impact of duty payment under protest on the limitation period. The Tribunal's detailed analysis and reliance on legal provisions and precedents resulted in the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal and the affirmation of the respondent's right to the refund.
|
