Refund claim time-barred under Section 11B, Tribunal rules. Commissioner's decision overturned.

The Commissioner (Appeal) initially allowed the respondent's refund claim, stating that the limitation period under Section 11B was not applicable. However, the Tribunal disagreed, ruling that the limitation period should start from the date of the final decision by the CCE (Appeals) in the respondent's favor. As the refund claim was filed beyond the one-year limitation period from that date, it was deemed time-barred. Therefore, the impugned order allowing the appeal was set aside, and the Revenue's appeal was allowed.

---

---

Issues:
1. Central Excise Duty evasion and penalty imposition.
2. Appeal against rejection of refund claim based on limitation period under Section 11B.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the respondent manufacturing marble slabs without paying Central Excise Duty, leading to a duty evasion case against them. The Additional Commissioner confirmed the duty demand, interest, and penalty under Section 11AC. However, the Commissioner (Appeal) later held, following a Supreme Court judgment, that the activity was not excisable, and marble slabs were not chargeable for excise duty. Subsequently, the respondent filed a refund claim, which was rejected as time-barred by the Deputy Commissioner, citing the limitation period under Section 11B. The Commissioner (Appeal) allowed the appeal, stating that the limitation was not applicable. This decision was challenged in the appeal of the revenue.

2. The departmental representative argued that the limitation period for filing the refund claim should be calculated from the date of the order-in-appeal in the respondent's favor. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, it was contended that the limitation would start from the final decision in the Assessee's own case. The respondent's counsel, on the other hand, asserted that since the duty was paid under protest, the limitation period would not apply. Referring to another Supreme Court observation, it was argued that the limitation provisions would not be applicable in cases ending in court judgments. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions, disagreed with the respondent's contention. It held that the limitation period would start from the date of the final decision by the CCE (Appeals) in the respondent's favor. As the refund claim was filed beyond the one-year limitation period from that date, it was deemed time-barred. Consequently, the impugned order allowing the appeal was set aside, and the Revenue's appeal was allowed.

---