CESTAT Mumbai grants refund of Rs. 70,000 overturning rejection due to time limit, payment protest.

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai allowed the appeal in favor of the appellants, granting a refund of Rs. 70,000. The refund claim, initially rejected for being filed beyond the six-month limit from the payment date and lacking protest at the time of payment, was upheld based on the argument that payments made before a show cause notice could be deemed as made under protest. Precedents from the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal supported this interpretation, leading to the decision in favor of the appellants.

---

---

Issues:
1. Refund claim filed beyond six months from the date of payment.
2. Payment not made under protest at the time of deposit.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a refund claim filed by the appellants for an amount of Rs. 70,000/-, which was rejected by the lower authorities on the grounds that it was filed beyond six months from the date of payment. The refund was sought subsequent to the dropping of a demand for duty confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner but overturned by the Commissioner (Appeals) in favor of the appellants. The issue of the refund claim being time-barred was raised by the learned S.D.R., citing the absence of a protest at the time of payment. The Apex Court's decisions in relevant cases were referenced to support the argument that the refund claim was not admissible due to the delay in filing and lack of protest at the time of payment.

2. The appellants, represented by a learned Consultant, relied on decisions from the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal to support their claim for the refund. These decisions highlighted that payments made before the issuance of a show cause notice could be considered as made under protest, and such protest continued during the adjudication and appellate proceedings. The Tribunal's rulings in similar circumstances allowed refunds, leading to the conclusion that the appellants were entitled to the refund of Rs. 70,000/-. The Member (T) set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal with consequential relief, following the precedent set by the Tribunal in previous cases from the Bangalore Bench.

In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai addressed the issues of a refund claim filed beyond the stipulated time and the absence of a protest at the time of payment. The decision favored the appellants, allowing the refund based on the interpretation of payments made before a show cause notice as being made under protest, in line with precedents set by the Tribunal in similar cases.

---