Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the amount deposited by the assessee at the instance of the Revenue and followed by a prompt protest letter was a deposit under protest so that the limitation under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 would not apply to the refund claim.
Analysis: The amount had been paid as a lump sum after the clearances, at the insistence of the Revenue, and was not a routine duty payment at the time of clearance. The assessee lodged a protest within six days of payment. In such a situation, the detailed procedure contemplated by Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for regular clearances was held not to be directly applicable. The procedural requirement could not be used to defeat a substantive refund claim where the payment had in substance been made under protest. The deposit also could not be treated as duty so as to attract the normal limitation provisions.
Conclusion: The limitation under section 11B did not apply, and the refund was admissible in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The denial of refund on limitation was set aside and the assessee's refund claim was sustained with consequential relief.
Ratio Decidendi: A payment made at the insistence of the Revenue, followed by a timely protest, is a deposit under protest and is not governed by the normal limitation applicable to routine duty refunds.