2017 (1) TMI 284 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal Dismissed: Time-barred refund claim denied despite manufacturer's payment under protest.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, ruling that the appellant's refund claim was time-barred and could not benefit from the manufacturer's payment under ... Refund claim - duty paid under protest - unjust enrichment - Time bar - Held that: - benefit of ‘payment of duty under protest’ made by the manufacturer cannot be extended to the buyer. Therefore, the present appellant cannot enjoy the benefit of payment of duty under protest by the manufacturer - reliance placed in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Allied Photographic India Limited [2004 (3) TMI 63 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], where it was held that there is no merit in the argument advanced on behalf of the respondent that the distributor was entitled to claim refund of “on account” payment made under protest by the manufacturer without complying with Section 11B of the Act, find that the refund claim filed by the appellant is beyond one year and therefore, the same is time-barred - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. Issues Involved:1. Refund claim rejection on grounds of unjust enrichment and time-barred.2. Applicability of payment of duty under protest by the manufacturer to the buyer's refund claim.3. Interpretation of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act in relation to refund claims.Analysis:1. The case involved a dispute regarding the refund claim of excise duty paid on physician samples manufactured by a third party for the appellant. The initial refund claim by the manufacturer was credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The appellant later filed a refund claim stating they had borne the duty incidence and not passed it on. The rejection was based on unjust enrichment and being time-barred. The appellate authority upheld the rejection based on the time limit under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.2. The appellant argued that the refund should be granted as they had not passed on the duty incidence and had paid under protest. They cited relevant case laws to support their claim. The Revenue contended that the appellant must comply with Section 11B for refunds, and the time limit cannot be relaxed based on the manufacturer's payment under protest. They relied on specific judgments to support their position.3. The Tribunal analyzed the issue of unjust enrichment and time-barred claims in light of the appellant's argument regarding payment under protest. They referred to a Supreme Court case which clarified the distinction between a manufacturer's and a buyer's refund claims. The Court held that the benefit of payment under protest by the manufacturer cannot be extended to the buyer. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the rejection of the appellant's refund claim as time-barred, following the Supreme Court's decision.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that the appellant's refund claim was beyond the time limit prescribed and could not benefit from the manufacturer's payment under protest. The decision was based on the interpretation of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act and the Supreme Court's ruling on the distinction between manufacturer and buyer refund claims.