2017 (6) TMI 939 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - cash discount quantity discount and dealer discount - denial originally on the ground that no discounts were shown in the invoices at the time of clearance of the goods and thereafter on the ground of Time bar - Held that - once the High Court has allowed the refund it was not incumbent on the appellant to file a fresh application claiming refund and the department should have implemented the judgment of the Hon ble High Court and should not have raised any objection with regard to time bar - the rejection of refund on time bar is also not justified because from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment of Hon ble High Court the refund was filed within time - refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against rejection of refund claim
- Interpretation of judgment of Hon'ble High Court
- Time limitation for filing refund claim

Analysis:

Appeal against rejection of refund claim:
The appeal was directed against the order passed by the Commissioner (A) rejecting the appellant's refund claim and upholding the Order-in-Original. The appellants, manufacturers of coated papers, sought a refund of duty paid on various discounts. The initial claims were rejected due to discounts not being shown on the invoices during goods clearance. Despite subsequent appeals, including to CESTAT and the High Court, the refund claims were rejected again. The present appeal challenged the rejection based on unjust enrichment and time-barred claims.

Interpretation of judgment of Hon'ble High Court:
The appellant argued that the impugned order disregarded the High Court's judgment allowing the refund claim for a specific period. The counsel contended that the department should have granted the refund in compliance with the High Court's decision without requiring a fresh claim. It was emphasized that the limitation period for filing the refund claim should commence from the date the appellant received the High Court's judgment, not from the original judgment date. The appellant highlighted that both lower authorities failed to consider this crucial aspect.

Time limitation for filing refund claim:
In contrast, the learned AR supported the findings of the impugned order. However, the Tribunal, after reviewing the submissions and the High Court's judgment, concluded that the appellant was entitled to the refund for the specified period as per the High Court's decision. The Tribunal noted that the department should have implemented the High Court's judgment without raising time-bar objections. It was ruled that the rejection on time-bar grounds was unjustified since the refund claim was filed within the limitation period starting from the date of receiving the High Court's judgment. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, providing the appellant with the necessary relief.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues of the appeal against the rejection of the refund claim, the interpretation of the High Court's judgment, and the determination of the time limitation for filing the refund claim. The Tribunal's decision focused on upholding the appellant's rights as per the High Court's ruling and ensuring that the refund claim was processed appropriately without unjustified time limitations.