Appellant wins duty-free procurement case: Tribunal restores refund claim

The appellant, a 100% EOU, was entitled to duty-free procurement under Notification No. 22/2003-C.E. The High Court held the suspension of this facility as without jurisdiction. The appellant filed a refund claim within the limitation period, which was initially denied due to a discrepancy in filing dates. However, the Tribunal found the claim timely and upheld the appellant's protest letter as valid, leading to the restoration of the refund claim. The Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision was set aside, and the original adjudicating authority's order was restored in favor of the appellant.

---

---

Issues:
1. Entitlement to benefit of Notification No. 22/2003-C.E.
2. Refund claim filed within the limitation period.
3. Discrepancy in the date of filing the refund claim.
4. Consideration of protest letter in relation to limitation period for refund.

Analysis:

1. The appellant, a 100% EOU, was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 22/2003-C.E., allowing duty-free procurement against CT-3 services. The Commissioner suspended this facility, but the Tribunal set aside the order, and subsequently, the High Court held the suspension order as without jurisdiction. The Commissioner later restored the CT-3 procurement facility.

2. The appellant purchased goods from M/s. Havells India Ltd. on payment of duty, and a refund claim of Rs. 58,114/- was filed within one year of duty payment. Although the claim was forwarded to another office, it was within the limitation period from the date of duty payment, as argued by the appellant.

3. The Commissioner (Appeals) disagreed, stating that the date of receipt by the Alwar office should be considered for the limitation period, not the filing date with the Hapur Commissionerate. The Commissioner also dismissed the relevance of the protest letter, leading to the denial of the refund claim.

4. The Tribunal found no dispute regarding the eligibility for refund or the timely filing of the first claim. It was noted that the protest letter was submitted at the time of original duty payment, indicating the appellant's objection. Consequently, the denial of the refund claim was deemed unwarranted, and the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision was set aside, restoring the original adjudicating authority's order in favor of the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing the correctness of the appellant's actions in filing the refund claim within the limitation period and submitting a protest letter at the time of duty payment, ultimately leading to the restoration of the refund claim.

---