Appellant's Refund Claim Upheld on Time Limit & Payment Nature

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant in a case concerning the time limit for filing a refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It held that the refund claim filed on 24.11.2017 was within the statutory time limit, as the relevant date for calculating the one-year period was the date of the High Court's decision, not the CESTAT's decision. Additionally, the Tribunal considered the payment made by the appellant as a payment under protest, exempting it from the limitation period under Section 11B. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, emphasizing compliance with the prescribed time limit and nature of the payment.

---

---

Issues:
1. Time limit for filing refund claim under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Interpretation of relevant date for filing refund claim.
3. Consideration of payment under protest for limitation period.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Time limit for filing refund claim under Section 11B
The appeal in question concerns the time limit for filing a refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant filed a refund claim on 24.11.2017, seeking a refund of an amount, including a pre-deposit. The Department contended that the refund claim was time-barred as it was filed beyond the one-year period from the relevant date, as mandated by Section 11B.

Issue 2: Interpretation of relevant date for filing refund claim
The Tribunal analyzed the relevant dates in the case, noting that the demand of duty was set aside by the CESTAT on 10.05.2016. Subsequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed by the High Court on 06.09.2017. The Tribunal held that the relevant date for calculating the one-year period under Section 11B was the date of the High Court's decision, not the CESTAT's decision. Therefore, the refund claim filed on 24.11.2017 was within the statutory time limit.

Issue 3: Consideration of payment under protest for limitation period
The Tribunal also considered whether the payment made by the appellant could be deemed as a payment under protest, thereby exempting it from the one-year limitation period under Section 11B. It was argued that since the payment was made under protest, the limitation period should not apply. Relying on precedent, the Tribunal held that the payment made under coercive circumstances, as in this case, should be considered a payment under protest. Consequently, the limitation issue raised by the Department was deemed unjustified.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the order under challenge and allowed the appeal, emphasizing that the refund claim was filed within the prescribed time limit, considering the relevant date and the nature of the payment made by the appellant.

---