9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 489X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 - 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. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hasija, Ld. Superintendent appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the grounds of appeal. He further submits that Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) for holding that refund is not time bar, has contended that issue of merit was under dispute and same was decided under Order in Appeal No. RK/193-194/NGP-I/2004 issued on 29-7-2004 to which the present refund claim for the period 1-4-2003 to 15-9-2005 were filed. The Commissioner(Appeals) on this basis taken stand that refund claim was mature only after order of the Commissioner(Appeals) dated 29-7-2004 was passed. He submits that the Ld. Commissioner has not considered other proceedings as mentioned in the grounds of appeal according to which refund was mature much before the date of filing of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unting to ₹ 1,36,058/- was rejected and against rejection order, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 20-1-2003 allowed the respondent's appeal. Therefore after 20-1-2003 issue is no more under dispute and therefore whatever duty was paid by the respondent they were suppose to file refund claim within one year from the date of payment therefore demand is time bar. On careful examination of the entire events, I find that aforesaid order referred by the Revenue in the grounds of appeal that refund was sanctioned to the respondent, whereas the same was rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment. As regard the merit of the case i.e. dispute of valuation which lead to the excess payment of duty and refund there against, though ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y other period in case of duty paid under protest, therefore revenue cannot create a particular period in case where duty is paid under protest. In other words when duty is paid under protest, limitation of one year does not apply, therefore refund in such case cannot be rejected on time bar. A case of very same fact has been decided by Division bench of this Tribunal in case of Madura Coats Pvt Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai[2011 (263) ELT 613(Tri.). The order passed by the Tribunal is as under: Heard both sides. The time chart furnished by the Id. Vice President of the appellant firm is reproduced below, which reflects the dates of various events relevant to this case. S.No. Events Date 1. Demand confirmed Rs.,20, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... limit has been prescribed for filing refund arising from an order passed by the Tribunal. As far as this case is concerned, the period is prior to the date of such amendment and in any case, the appellants had filed the refund claim even before the order of the Tribunal was passed. Hence, there is no justification whatsoever to hold the refund claim to be time barred. As regards the issue of unjust enrichment, we find that the lower appellate authority has given a finding in this regard in favour of the appellants and there is no appeal against such finding, by the department. Hence, we allow the appeal of the appellants setting aside the order of the lower appellate authority on the ground of limitation and direct the authorities below to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
