Tribunal orders refund of Rs. 7,85,536/- under protest, rejecting Revenue's time-bar argument.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the refund of Rs. 7,85,536/- to the appellants. It held that the amount was paid under protest, rejecting the Revenue's argument of time-bar on the refund claim. The Tribunal emphasized that the payment made during investigation was deemed to be under protest, not falling under the limitation period of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. Consequently, the department was directed to provide the consequential relief to the appellants as ordered by the Tribunal.

---

---

Issues Involved: Refund claim rejection on the ground of time bar, payment under protest, applicability of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.

Refund Claim Rejection on Time Bar:
The appellants filed a refund claim of Rs. 7,85,536/- which was rejected on the ground of time bar. The learned Advocate for the appellants argued that the impugned amount was paid under the direction of the department and contested the payment. Citing precedents, it was argued that the amount deposited during investigation is deemed to have been paid under protest, making the refund claim not time-barred.

Payment Under Protest:
The Revenue contended that the refund application should be considered time-barred as it was filed after the period of limitation from the date of reversal of the impugned amount. Reference was made to a Supreme Court decision emphasizing the Customs Authorities' adherence to the period of limitation under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Applicability of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act:
Upon careful consideration, it was found that the question of limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act does not apply in this case. The Tribunal noted that the appellants contested the payment from the adjudicating stage till winning the appeal, indicating it was made under protest. The Tribunal's Final Order directed consequential relief to the appellants, which the department failed to provide. The Tribunal concluded that the payment should be considered as made under protest, and the refund should be allowed if otherwise in order, ultimately allowing the appeal.

---