Assessee wins appeal for refund denial; time-barred claim deemed valid under Section 11B.

The appeal was filed by the assessee against the rejection of a refund of Rs. 2,00,000. The Member (Judicial) considered the arguments and referred to a case law where it was held that the refund claim was not time-barred as it was filed within the permissible period under Section 11B. Consequently, the impugned order denying the refund on the ground of limitation was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential benefits as per law.

---

---

Issues:
- Rejection of refund of Rs. 2,00,000 by the assessee
- Denial of refund on the ground of limitation

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the assessee against the rejection of a refund of Rs. 2,00,000. The Advocate for the appellant argued that the denial of refund based on limitation was unjustified. He referred to a case law and contended that the refund claim was within time as per the doctrine of merger. The Authorized Representative for the Revenue supported the findings in the impugned order. The Member (Judicial) considered the contentions and reviewed the orders of lower authorities. It was noted that the Revenue did not dispute the eligibility of the assessee for refund except for the limitation issue.

The Member (Judicial) referred to a case decided by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal involving a similar issue of refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Delhi Bench held that once the Supreme Court admitted the Revenue's Special Leave Petition (SLP), the decision of the High Court merged with the Supreme Court's decision. The relevant date for determining the refund claim was considered to be the date of the Supreme Court's judgment. Applying the Delhi Bench's ratio, it was concluded that the appellant's refund claim was not time-barred as it was filed within the permissible period under Section 11B.

Therefore, the impugned order denying the refund on the ground of limitation was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential benefits as per law. The decision was pronounced in the open court on 20.01.2020.

---