Tribunal allows refund of pre-deposit amount as Section 11B(5)(ec) limitation applies only to excise duty refunds

CESTAT Bangalore allowed appellant's appeal for refund of pre-deposit amount of Rs. 26,38,300/- including credit and interest. The Tribunal held that Section 11B(5)(ec) of Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding one-year limitation applies only to excise duty refunds, not pre-deposits made during investigation. Following precedents from Madras HC and Karnataka HC, the Tribunal distinguished Gujarat HC's Ajni Interiors judgment and ruled the refund claim was not time-barred since the deposited amount covered alleged CENVAT credit claims later held unsustainable.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the amount paid during the investigation is to be treated as a "deposit" or "duty".
2. Whether the refund claim is barred by limitation u/s 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Summary of Judgment:

1. Treatment of Amount Paid During Investigation:

The appellant, a cement manufacturer, paid an amount of Rs. 26,38,300/- during an investigation, which included Rs. 24,27,751/- as credit and Rs. 2,10,549/- as interest. The appellant contended that this payment was made under compulsion and should be treated as a pre-deposit, not as duty. The Tribunal referenced multiple judgments, including the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Suretex Prophylactics (India) Private Limited and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Mafatlal Industries Ltd, which supported the view that payments made under protest or compulsion should be treated as deposits. The Tribunal concluded that the amount paid by the appellant was a "deposit" and not a payment of duty.

2. Limitation for Refund Claim u/s 11B:

The appellant did not file a refund application within one year from the relevant date, as required u/s 11B(5)(ec) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant argued that the limitation period should not apply to amounts paid under protest. The Tribunal noted that the second proviso to Section 11B exempts the limitation period for duties paid under protest. The Tribunal also referenced various case laws, including M/s GS Radiators Ltd and M/s Shree Ram Food Industries, which held that payments made under protest are not subject to the limitation period. The Tribunal concluded that the refund claim was not barred by limitation as the amount was paid under protest.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal held that the amount paid by the appellant during the investigation was a "deposit" and not a duty. Consequently, the limitation period u/s 11B did not apply to the refund claim. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief in accordance with the law.

(Order pronounced in open court on 22.03.2024.)

---