Tribunal grants appeal for refund claim under Central Excise Act, 1944. Deposit made "under protest" valid.

The Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal in a case involving a refund claim under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal held that the refund application was not time-barred, as it was filed within the limitation period. Additionally, the appellant's deposit was considered to be made "under protest," entitling them to the benefit of the proviso to section 11B. The Tribunal emphasized that a formal protest letter was not necessary for a refund claim to be valid. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the previous orders and directed the respondents to process the refund applications promptly.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the refund application was time-barred.
2. Whether the amount was deposited "under protest".
3. Whether the refund claim was valid despite the absence of a formal protest letter.

Summary:

1. Time-barred Refund Application:
The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of Decorative Laminate/Sheet, filed a refund claim for Rs. 12,60,492/- on 09.01.2019 under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The department issued a show cause notice on 13.02.2019, asserting that the refund claim was time-barred as per section 11B. Both the adjudicating authority and the Commissioner of (Appeals) confirmed the show cause notice, holding that the case did not fall under the category of payment "under protest". The Tribunal, however, found that the authorities below did not consider the case law on the subject properly. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's refund application was within the limitation period of one year from the date of the Tribunal's order on 27.04.2018, as per clause (ec) of Explanation B to section 11B.

2. Amount Deposited "Under Protest":
The appellant argued that the amount was deposited under protest, as evidenced by the Excise Return (ER-I) for various periods and the Cenvat Credit Register. The authorities below rejected this claim, stating that the RG-23 register was a printout of an excel sheet and that manually filed Excise Returns were not acceptable post-2011. The Tribunal found that the appellant substantially complied with the Supplementary Instructions, Chapter 13 of CBEC's Excise Manual, and was entitled to the benefit of the proviso to section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which states that the limitation period of one year shall not apply where duty and interest are paid under protest.

3. Validity of Refund Claim without Formal Protest Letter:
The Tribunal referred to the decision in India Cements Ltd., Vs. CCEX - 1989 (41) ELT 358, where the Apex Court held that a letter given by the assessee could be taken as a protest. The Tribunal applied this ratio to the present case, concluding that the appellant's actions indicated that they were not accepting the liability without protest. The Tribunal disagreed with the findings that the appellant should have submitted a letter of protest or filed a refund claim within the statutory period of one year from the date of payment.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeal, directing the respondents to process the refund applications and make the refund in accordance with the law as expeditiously as possible. The order was pronounced on 9th May 2023.

---