Consequential refund under revisional order and protest letter negate suppression, making delayed recovery notice time-barred.

A refund arising from a binding revisional order was treated as consequential relief, so it could be granted suo motu without a fresh refund claim or time-bar. The receipt of a protest letter negatived any allegation of suppression or misstatement, even if formal stamping requirements were not fully complied with, because the department was aware that duty was paid under protest. As the extended limitation period was unavailable, recovery of the alleged erroneous refund had to proceed within the ordinary six-month period; a notice issued after that period was time-barred and unenforceable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether refund paid in pursuance of an order-in-revision was a consequential refund payable suo motu and outside the time-limit for a refund claim; (ii) Whether the assessee could be charged with misstatement or suppression so as to attract the extended period for recovery when a letter of protest had been received; (iii) Whether the demand for recovery of the alleged erroneous refund, issued more than six months after payment, was time-barred.

Issue (i): Whether refund paid in pursuance of an order-in-revision was a consequential refund payable suo motu and outside the time-limit for a refund claim.

Analysis: The order-in-revision had already accepted the assessee's classification and exemption claim, leaving only implementation by the department. The refund was therefore not an ordinary refund dependent on a fresh claim, but a consequential relief flowing from a binding revisional order. In such a situation, the proper course was for the department to grant the refund suo motu. The matter was treated as falling within the statutory provision dispensing with a time-bar in such cases.

Conclusion: The refund was consequential and was not barred by limitation on the ground that no separate claim was required.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee could be charged with misstatement or suppression so as to attract the extended period for recovery when a letter of protest had been received.

Analysis: The record showed that the assessee had communicated that duty was being paid under protest. Mere non-compliance with the formal stamping requirements under the rules did not justify treating the protest as non-existent for all purposes. Once the department had received the protest letter, the assessee could not be said to have suppressed the fact of protest or made a misstatement on that score. The dispute was at most one of technical compliance, not of concealment or falsehood.

Conclusion: The extended period was not available, as there was no misstatement or suppression attributable to the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the demand for recovery of the alleged erroneous refund, issued more than six months after payment, was time-barred.

Analysis: Even assuming the refund had been erroneously granted, recovery had to be initiated within the ordinary limitation period unless the conditions for the extended period were satisfied. As the department failed to establish suppression or misstatement, only the normal six-month period applied. The show-cause notice was issued well beyond that period, and the demand therefore could not survive.

Conclusion: The demand was time-barred and unenforceable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned demand and appellate order were set aside, and the assessee succeeded in full.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund flowing from a binding revisional order is consequential and may be granted suo motu; receipt of a protest letter negatives suppression or misstatement for limitation purposes; and recovery of an alleged erroneous refund must be initiated within the ordinary limitation period unless the statutory conditions for extension are proved.

---