Tribunal orders refund with interest, finds lower court error on limitation, emphasizes CGST Act transitory provisions.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and directed the Adjudicating Authority to grant the refund within 45 days from the date of the order, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The Tribunal found that the lower court erred in rejecting the refund claim based on limitation, highlighting the oversight of transitory provisions under the CGST Act.

---

---

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.

Analysis:
The appellant had deposited an amount during an investigation, followed by a confirmation of demand for a higher amount, which was later successfully appealed before the Tribunal. Subsequently, the appellant filed a refund claim, which was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority citing limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.

The appellant argued that due to the repeal of the Central Excise Act, provisions under the CGST Act, specifically Section 174 and Section 143, saved all claims and liabilities for the period before 30.06.2017. The appellant also pointed out the Transitory Provisions under Section 142 (3) & (5) of the CGST Act, which allowed refunds after 1.7.2017 to be granted in cash without the application of the Limitation Provisions under Section 11B, except for unjust enrichment considerations.

The Authorised Representative relied on the impugned order upholding the rejection of the refund claim based on limitation. However, the Tribunal found that the lower court had erred in rejecting the refund claim on the grounds of limitation. The Tribunal highlighted the oversight of the transitory provisions under the CGST Act, which were not considered by the Adjudicating Authority.

Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and directed the Adjudicating Authority to grant the refund within 45 days from the date of the order, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, as established in a previous case by the Division Bench of the Tribunal.

---