2018 (11) TMI 1365 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - time limitation - case of appellant is that refund claim is hit by time-bar since the relevant date is 31.3.2015 on which date the last installment was paid by the appellant during the period of investigation - Held that - The duty has been determined by the adjudicating authority by order dated 6.1.2017 only. The appellant has come to know that he has paid excess duty only on such date. Therefore, the refund claim filed in February 2017 is well within the time and the contention of the department that the date of payment of last installment should be the relevant date is without any merits - refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the refund claim filed in February 2017 is time-barred.

Analysis:
The appellants, engaged in the manufacture of sago and starch, paid an amount during an investigation, with the last payment made on 31.3.2015. The original authority confirmed a duty demand on 6.1.2017. A refund claim for the excess amount paid was filed in February 2017, which was sanctioned by the refund authority. The department contended that the refund claim was time-barred since the last payment date should be considered the relevant date. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the claim, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.

The appellant's counsel argued that the duty was confirmed only on 6.1.2017, and the amounts paid during the investigation should be treated as a deposit. The refund claim was filed after realizing the excess payment, well within the time from the date of the duty determination order. On the other hand, the department's representative claimed that the relevant date should be the last payment date of 31.3.2015, making the refund claim beyond the limitation period.

After hearing both sides, the Tribunal concluded that the refund claim filed in February 2017 was not time-barred. The duty was determined by the adjudicating authority on 6.1.2017, and the appellant only became aware of the excess payment on that date. Therefore, the contention that the last payment date should be considered the relevant date for the refund claim was dismissed. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief.

This judgment clarifies the crucial aspect of determining the relevant date for a refund claim in relation to duty payments made during an investigation. It emphasizes that the date of duty determination by the adjudicating authority is significant in assessing the timeliness of a refund claim, rather than the date of the last payment made during the investigation period.