Refund claim time-barred in 2005 deemed unreasonable. Remanded for fresh disposal.

The Tribunal held that the original refund claim filed in 2002 was within the prescribed time limit under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The rejection of the claim as time-barred in 2005 was deemed unreasonable, as other issues like merit or unjust enrichment were not addressed. The matter was remanded for fresh disposal, instructing the adjudicating authority to consider the demand case's status and provide a personal hearing to the appellant. The authority was directed to resolve the matter within three months.

---

---

Issues:
1. Rejection of refund claim as time-barred.
2. Rejection of appeal by Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground of prematurity.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a refund claim filed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs. 16 lacs in March 2001 and filed a refund claim on 9-2-2002. The department rejected the refund claim on 3-5-2002 citing an ongoing investigation. Subsequently, a demand show cause notice was issued proposing a demand of Rs. 40,55,519/- and appropriation of the Rs. 16 lacs deposited. The demand was confirmed on 20-7-2004, and the Rs. 16 lacs were appropriated. An appeal was filed before CESTAT, which remanded the matter for fresh disposal. The appellant again requested a refund on 11-6-2005. However, the Asstt. Commissioner rejected the refund claim on 27-10-2005 as time-barred, stating that the refund claim filed on 29-7-2005 was beyond the prescribed time limit. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this rejection, citing prematurity due to the remanded demand case.

2. The appellant argued that the refund claim filed on 9-2-2002 was within the one-year period as per Section 11B, and the subsequent claim on 29-7-2005 should not affect the original claim's validity. The Commissioner (Appeals) was criticized for exceeding jurisdiction by rejecting the appeal on prematurity, which was not the ground for rejection in the show cause notice or the original order. The Tribunal found that the original claim filed in 2002 was within the prescribed time limit and should be considered valid. The rejection based solely on time-bar was deemed unreasonable, as the Commissioner (Appeals) did not address other issues like merit or unjust enrichment. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to pass a fresh order after considering the status of the demand case and giving a personal hearing to the appellant. The adjudicating authority was instructed to dispose of the matter within three months to expedite the resolution of the case.

---