2005 (2) TMI 335 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Whether the refund claim filed by the respondents for an amount of duty paid is barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.

Analysis:
The appeal in question dealt with the refund claim filed by the respondents for an amount of duty paid for a specific period, based on the argument that the excess freight amount collected from buyers was not includible in the assessable value and dutiable. The original authority rejected the claim as time-barred under Section 11B, citing that it was filed beyond six months from the duty payment date. However, the first appellate authority allowed the refund claim, stating that the limitation provisions did not apply as the claim should be deemed to have been filed for refund of duty paid under protest.

Upon reviewing the records and submissions, it was found that the assessee's challenge against the inclusion of excess freight amount in the assessable value was upheld in an earlier order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), which was accepted by the Department. The refund claim was filed during the pendency of the appeal against the valuation dispute. Considering that the party's appeal was pending during the period of dispute, it was deemed that duty was paid under protest. Therefore, the time-bar provisions of Section 11B were deemed inapplicable. This interpretation aligned with the Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. U.O.I. [1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.)].

Consequently, the impugned order allowing the refund claim was upheld, and the appeal by the Revenue challenging this decision was dismissed. The judgment was delivered on 10-2-2005.