2004 (4) TMI 252 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal dismissed for excess duty refund denial; payment deemed protest; revenue appeal lacks legal basis.

The appeal challenging the refund claim denial of Rs. 5,662.50, which was initially rejected but later allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals), was ... Refund - Limitation - Protest Issues Involved: Appeal against refund claim denial, excess duty payment, rejection of revenue's appeal by Commissioner (A).Refund Claim Denial: The appeal from the revenue challenges the order-in-appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the refund claim of Rs. 5,662.50, which was initially denied by the Assistant Commissioner. The respondents had made an excess payment of duty erroneously and sought its refund. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the rejection order and directed the Assistant Commissioner to sanction the refund. The revenue, dissatisfied with the refund sanction, filed an appeal before Commissioner (A) which was rejected, leading to the current challenge.Excess Duty Payment: The Assistant Commissioner's order sanctioning the refund was in compliance with the Commissioner (Appeals)'s directive from a previous order. The revenue's appeal lacked a basis as the initial order was not challenged, and the payment made by the respondents was deemed a protest payment even without explicit mention of protest. Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, it was emphasized that when contesting liability through appeal, payment is considered under protest. Consequently, the rejection of the claim on the grounds of time bar was deemed unjustified, rendering the revenue's appeal meritless.Rejection of Revenue's Appeal: The appeal filed by the revenue to Commissioner (A) was dismissed as it lacked a valid basis, and the reasoning provided by the Commissioner (Appeals) highlighted the concept of protest payment in litigation matters. The rejection of the revenue's appeal was upheld based on the legal principle that payments made under the intention to contest liability are considered protest payments, as per the guidance from the Supreme Court's judgment.