2015 (3) TMI 658 - HC - Central Excise

Refund claim denied due to voluntary payment; time-barred refund application; limited High Court review

The appellant's claim for a refund of excise duty was denied as the duty was found to have been voluntarily paid and not under protest, making Section 11B ... Limitation for refund under Section 11B - refund of excise duty paid under protest - unjust enrichment and passing on of duty - concurrent finding of fact and appellate restraint on reappraisalLimitation for refund under Section 11B - refund of excise duty paid under protest - Whether the refund claimed was governed by Section 11B and barred by limitation, having regard to whether the amounts were paid voluntarily or under protest/direction of department. - HELD THAT: - The Assistant Commissioner allowed the refund without addressing limitation. The Commissioner (Appeals) examined the material, including the show cause notice and correspondence, and found as a factual conclusion that the sums were voluntarily paid and not paid pursuant to any direction or under protest; consequently the main limitation provision of Section 11B applied. The CESTAT affirmed that factual finding and held the refund application to be time barred. The High Court declined to reappraise the factual materials or disturb the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) and affirmed by the CESTAT, holding that no substantial question of law arises since the determination that the payments were voluntary is a finding of fact not amenable to fresh scrutiny by this Court. [Paras 6, 7]The finding that the payments were voluntary and that the refund was barred by limitation under Section 11B is sustained; the appeal is dismissed.Final Conclusion: The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the concurrent factual finding that the excise payments were voluntary (and therefore subject to the limitation in Section 11B) stands and no substantial question of law arises warranting interference. Issues:1. Whether the refund claimed by the appellant was governed by provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and was barred by limitationRs.Analysis:1. The appellant had paid excise duty between 22.2.1999 and 28.8.1999, and later applied for a refund of Rs. 4,12,590. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the refund, stating that the duty was not passed on to the buyer, thus unjust enrichment under Section 11B was not applicable.2. The Revenue challenged the refund order, claiming the payment was voluntary, not under protest. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the payment was voluntary, not under any direction, making Section 11B applicable. The CESTAT also upheld this decision, stating the refund application was time-barred.3. The appellant argued that the refund application was due only after a show cause notice in 2001, not earlier. However, the CESTAT rejected the appeal, finding no error in the Commissioner's decision. The appellant's attempt to rectify the order was also unsuccessful.4. The High Court dismissed the appeal, stating no question of law arose. The Court clarified that its jurisdiction did not permit delving into factual findings, as the CESTAT's decision was final. Hence, the appeal was devoid of merit and dismissed accordingly.