2019 (9) TMI 529 - HC - Central Excise

Court rejects refund claim due to time-barred filing and availability of statutory remedy.

AJNI INTERIORS Versus UNION OF INDIA And 1 other (s)

AJNI INTERIORS Versus UNION OF INDIA And 1 other (s) - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether the amount deposited by the petitioner during the investigation was a pre-deposit or Central Excise Duty.2. Whether the refund claim was filed within the prescribed period of limitation and in the prescribed form under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.3. Whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Nature of the Amount Deposited:The petitioner claimed that the amount deposited during the investigation was a pre-deposit and not Central Excise Duty. The court examined the nature of the deposits made through TR-6 challans, which were intended to prevent the incidence of interest and liability accruing from non-payment of duty. It was determined that these payments were voluntary and not made under protest, hence they could not be considered as pre-deposits under Section 35F of the Act. The court emphasized that only payments made as a pre-condition for exercising a statutory right could be termed as pre-deposits. Therefore, the amounts deposited by the petitioner were categorized as Central Excise Duty.2. Filing of Refund Claim:The petitioner argued that the refund claim should not be governed by Section 11B of the Act. However, the court referred to Section 11B, which mandates that a refund claim must be filed in the prescribed form within one year from the relevant date. The relevant date, in this case, was the date when the CESTAT allowed the appeal (31.07.2007). The court found that the petitioner did not file the refund claim within the stipulated period and did not use the prescribed form. Furthermore, the court noted that the payments were not made under protest, which would have exempted the petitioner from the one-year limitation. Consequently, the refund claim was deemed time-barred and improperly filed.3. Maintainability of the Writ Petition:The respondent argued that the writ petition under Article 226 was not maintainable due to the availability of an equally efficacious statutory remedy under Section 35G of the Act. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, which held that refund claims must be preferred under the respective enactments within the prescribed period. The court emphasized that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 should be exercised consistently with the provisions of the Act. Given that the petitioner did not exhaust the statutory remedy and failed to comply with Section 11B, the writ petition was not maintainable.Conclusion:The court concluded that the amounts deposited by the petitioner were Central Excise Duty and not pre-deposits. The refund claim was filed beyond the prescribed period and not in the prescribed form, making it time-barred. Moreover, the writ petition under Article 226 was not maintainable as the petitioner did not exhaust the statutory remedy. The petition was therefore rejected.