Appeal dismissed: Duty payment not under protest, refund claim time-barred, penalty adjustment upheld.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, ruling that the duty amount paid by the appellant did not qualify as payment under protest as it was paid before contesting it. The refund claim filed after one year from the CESTAT's Final Order was deemed time-barred and rejected. The adjustment of penalty from the refund amount was upheld due to wrongful Cenvat credit availment. The Tribunal found the issues raised by the appellant not maintainable and dismissed the appeal.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are:
1. Whether the duty amount paid by the appellant through reversal of cenvat credit and subsequently disputed on grounds of limitation can be considered as payment under protestRs.
2. Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was correct in affirming that the refund claim was time-barred as it was filed after one year from the Hon'ble CESTAT's Final OrderRs.
3. Whether the adjustment of penalty amount from the sanctioned refund by the adjudicating authority is legally validRs.

Summary of Judgment:

Issue 1:
The appellant contended that the duty amount paid by reversing cenvat credit and later disputing it on limitation grounds should be considered as payment under protest. However, the Tribunal found that the appellant had agreed and paid the duty amount upon audit findings before contesting it, hence it did not qualify as payment under protest.

Issue 2:
Regarding the refund claim, the appellant filed it after one year from the Hon'ble CESTAT's Final Order, which was deemed time-barred as per Section 11B(5) Explanation (B) (ec) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claim on this ground.

Issue 3:
The adjudicating authority had adjusted a portion of the penalty from the sanctioned refund amount. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the Tribunal had not specifically addressed the penalty issue. As there was wrongful availment of Cenvat credit, the imposition and adjustment of penalty from the refund amount were deemed valid.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that the issues raised were not maintainable based on the discussions provided.

(Order pronounced in Open Court on 18/08/2023)

---