2014 (7) TMI 66 - AT - Central Excise

Time-barred refund claim allowed under Central Excise Act

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Versus HIRA ENTERPRISES

The tribunal held that the refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1994 was not time-barred as the relevant date for filing was after ... Denial of refund claim - Bar of limitation - Held that:- The fact is that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has settled the issue only on 18.08.2004 as the demand is not maintainable against the respondent. In these circumstances, the relevant date for filing the refund claim is from 18.8.2004 and not prior to that. Therefore, it cannot be said that the refund claim is barred by limitation. Further, the amount paid by the respondent during the course of investigation is not a duty. When no duty has been paid, therefore bar of unjust enrichment is not applicable. In these circumstances, I do not find any infirmity with the impugned order and the same is upheld - Decided against Revenue. Issues:1. Time limitation for filing refund claim under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1994.2. Bar of unjust enrichment applicability on refund claim.3. Adjudication of refund claim by Commissioner (Appeals).Analysis:1. The issue before the tribunal was the time limitation for filing the refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1994. The appellant contended that the refund claim of Rs. 10 lakhs filed by the respondent was time-barred as the amount was paid beyond the one-year period prescribed by Section 11B. However, the tribunal noted that the demand was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 18.08.2004, and therefore, the relevant date for filing the refund claim was from that date, not prior to it. Consequently, the tribunal held that the refund claim was not barred by limitation.2. Another issue raised was the applicability of the bar of unjust enrichment on the refund claim. The Revenue argued that the respondent failed to pass the bar of unjust enrichment, thus justifying the rejection of the refund claim. However, the tribunal disagreed, stating that since no duty had been paid by the respondent during the investigation, the bar of unjust enrichment was not applicable. Therefore, the tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in allowing the refund claim.3. The tribunal also addressed the adjudication of the refund claim by the Commissioner (Appeals). The adjudicating authority had rejected the refund claim as time-barred and for failing to pass the bar of unjust enrichment. The Commissioner (Appeals), on the other hand, held that the refund claim was within the time limit and that the bar of unjust enrichment did not apply. The tribunal, after considering the arguments presented, upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue.In conclusion, the tribunal found no infirmity with the impugned order and upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in allowing the refund claim of the respondent.