Court grants refund to Government undertaking, criticizes narrow approach on excise duty refund under Section 11B.

The court allowed the writ petition filed by the Assessee, a Government of India undertaking, challenging the rejection of a refund claim for excise duty on the ground of limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The court held that the payment of excise duty could be treated as made 'under protest,' allowing for the rightful refund of the duty. The court criticized the narrow approach of the authorities and directed the refund of the entire eligible amount with interest, emphasizing compliance with constitutional provisions prohibiting unauthorized tax collection.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of refund claim on the ground of limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.
2. Applicability of exemption notification to the entire quantity of goods supplied.
3. Whether the payment of excise duty can be treated as made 'under protest'.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of refund claim on the ground of limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act:

The Assessee, a Government of India undertaking, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order of the Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), which upheld the rejection of a refund claim for excise duty on the ground of limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal distinguished the case from the Calcutta High Court's decision in Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta Vs. Bata Shoe Co. (P) Ltd., where the payment of duty was made under protest. The Tribunal noted that in the present case, the duty was not paid under protest, and the ad-hoc exemption order issued by the Central Government operated differently. The Tribunal followed its earlier view in the case of Ion Exchange, which supported the Revenue's stance that the refund claim was time-barred under Section 11B.

2. Applicability of exemption notification to the entire quantity of goods supplied:

The Assessee was granted an ad-hoc exemption by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) for the entire quantity of 2640 Metric Tons of Stainless Steel Coin Blanks supplied to the Department of Economic Affairs. The exemption was clarified to apply to all clearances made by the Assessee. However, the Assessee initially paid the excise duty and later claimed a refund. The Adjudicating Authority allowed a partial refund but disallowed the remaining claim on the ground of limitation. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the exemption granted should apply to the entire quantity and that the duty paid should be refunded, treating it as paid 'under protest'.

3. Whether the payment of excise duty can be treated as made 'under protest':

The learned counsel for the petitioner emphasized that the payment of excise duty should be considered as made 'under protest' due to the specific circumstances and the ad-hoc exemption granted. The court observed that the exemption was granted for a specific quantity and purpose, and the payment of excise duty was made under compulsion for clearance of goods. The court held that such payment could be treated as made 'under protest' under Section 11B of the Act, paving the way for the rightful refund of excise duty in consonance with Article 265 of the Constitution of India, which prohibits the collection of tax or duty without authority of law.

Conclusion:

The court criticized the narrow and pedantic view of the Assessing Authority and the Tribunal's pro-revenue approach, which led to unnecessary litigation and loss of public resources. The court set aside the orders of the Tribunal and the authorities below, directing the Assessing Authority to refund the entire eligible amount with interest according to law. The writ petition was allowed, and no order as to costs was made.

---