Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + Commissioner Central Excise - 2015 (1) TMI Commissioner This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 369 - Commissioner - Central ExciseDenial of refund claim - Bar of limitation - Unjust enrichment - exemption under Notification No. 5/1999, S. No. 5 - Classification of goods - Classification held in favour of assessee by Commissioner and upheld by Supreme Court [2011 (7) TMI 1088 - Supreme Court of India] - whether the appellants are entitled for refund of duty or not - Held that:- adjudicating authority had observed that the refund claim had been filed by the appellants consequent to Hon’ble CEGAT’s judgment dated 26-9-2002. The adjudicating authority further observed that Hon’ble CEGAT’s order supra was never stayed by any appellate authority and that Hon’ble CEGAT, in their order supra had held that “The appeals of the appellants stand allowed accordingly with consequential relief, permissible under the law”; that therefore, the appellants should have filed the refund claim within one year of Hon’ble CEGAT’s order. Further, I find that for not applying refund after CEGAT’s order supra, the appellants had contended before the adjudicating authority that they did not do so because the matter was pending before Hon’ble Supreme Court. Further, I find that for holding the refund claim of the appellants as time-barred, the adjudicating authority had relied upon clause (ec) supra. But I find that the clause (ec) supra of Explanation to Section 11B of the Act was introduced w.e.f. 11-5-2007, whereas the refund claim in the present appeal pertains to the period from March, 2001 to October, 2002. I find that during the period prior to 11-5-2007, there was no ‘relevant date’ prescribed in the Explanation to Section 11B supra in so far as consequential refunds are concerned. Further, I find that clause (ec) supra had not been given retrospective effect and thus, the same can be made applicable only in respect of the duties which had been paid after the said amendment and for which the refund claims are being filed thereafter. Therefore, I hold that the clause (ec) supra of Explanation to Section 11B of the Act, cannot be applied to the duties paid for the periods prior to the said amendment. Clause (ec) is also not applicable to the present case as the duty was paid ‘under protest’ by the appellants. This is evident from the letter dated 7-3-2001 filed by the appellants with the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax Division Sangrur, intimating thereunder that they would pay the duty on “Lehar Kurkure Namkeen” and “Cheetos Tomato wheels namkeen” under protest. Therefore, the relevant date of one year for filing refund, become nugatory in the present case, as evident from the plain reading of the provisions of Section 11B of the Act, supra which states that that the limitation of one year shall not apply where any duty and interest, if any, paid on such duty has been paid under protest. Balance sheets filed by the appellants for the relevant period that they have shown the refundable amount as recoverable from the excise authorities, under the schedule relating to loans and advances in their balance sheets for the period from 2001-02 onwards till 2012-13. Further I find that the appellants have also submitted a copy of Chartered Accountant’s certificated dated 18-2-2013 validating the entries in their balance sheets. I find that the balance sheets are conclusive evidence clearly showing the recoverable refundable amount from Excise department. Further, I observe that to rebut such conclusive evidence as that of balance sheets, which are in fact a statutory obligation for a limited company under Companies Act, one need to have sound and reasonable evidence to counter the same. Further, I also observe that the appellants have submitted a chart which showed the MRP at which the products in question have been sold during that period i.e. prior to 2001-02 during the disputed period, namely, 2001-02 and 2002-03 and much after the disputed period, namely, 2003-04. Adjudicating authority had observed that that since the products in question were subject to MRP based assessment under Section 4A of the Act, and definition of retail sale price in the Explanation to Section 4A was inclusive of the duties and taxes, the duty paid by the appellant during the relevant period had formed part of the retail sale price and, therefore, the appellant had passed on the duty burden to the consumers. I find that if this reasoning of the adjudicating authority is accepted then all MRP based products would not be eligible to claim refund of duty, if any. Further, I find that when the duty was paid under protest and shown to be recoverable from the department and further more there was no fluctuation in the MRP of the products, it clearly implies that the appellants had not passed on the duty element to the buyers. Thus, I hold that the appellants had succeeded in proving that the products in question manufactured and sold by them, did not include duty paid under protest. Refund is not hit by the doctrine of unjust enrichment, neither hit by time limitation - Decided in favour of assessee.
|