Rejection of refund claim deemed perverse when previous adjudication confirmed entitlement, establishing improper administrative practice.

Order :

1. Petitioner has filed present writ petition seeking direction to direct respondents to grant refund of Rs.16,89,669/- along with interest, as well as to pay compensation for withholding of refund for longer period of time.

2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is engaged in manufacture of Sunglasses and Spectacle frames falling under Chapter 90 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. It appears that petitioner had not reversed/deposited the CENVAT Credit involved in the inputs written off by it in its balance sheet for the A.Y. 2000-2001. Therefore, a show cause notice dated 18^th May 2004 was issued to petitioner demanding amount of Rs.16,89,669/- along with interest and penalty. The said show cause notice culminated in the demand vide Order-in-Original No.67/104 dated 21^st October 2004.

3. Being aggrieved of Order-in-Original No.67/104, petitioner filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur and the same was rejected on 01^st March 2005.

4. Being aggrieved of Order-in-Application No.17(MPM)CE/JPR- I/2005 dated 01^st March 2005, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short ‘the CESTAT’) and the CESTAT vide final order No.A/380/2012-EX[BR] dated 31^st March 2012 accepted the appeal and set aside the impugned order with consequential relief to petitioner.

5. Being aggrieved of the order passed by CESTAT, respondent- department filed an appeal i.e. D.B. Excise Appeal (EXCIA) No.34/2012 before this Court, and a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court; in the light of Circular dated 17^th December 2015 and 01^st January 2016 issued by Central Board of Excise & Customs, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue whereby, monetary limit was fixed; dismissed the appeal vide order dated 21^st April 2017. As a consequence of the said dismissal, petitioner filed a refund claim of Rs. 16,89,669/- on 19^th February 2018 pursuant to order passed by CESTAT dated 31^st March 2012.

6. Assistant Commissioner, CGST Division-C, Bhiwadi vide order No.99/2018-19 (Refund) dated 11^th October 2018 rejected the refund claim filed by petitioner while holding the claim to be time barred in terms of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short ‘the Act’).

7. Being aggrieved of the said Order-in-Original No.99/2018-19 (Refund) dated 11^th October 2018, petitioner had filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur which was rejected again vide order dated 02^nd September 2019.

8. Being aggrieved of Order-in-Original No.241(CRM)/CE/JPR/2019 dated 02^nd September 2019 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur, petitioner preferred an appeal before the CESTAT and the CESTAT vide final order No.51613/2021 dated 29^th June 2021 set aside the findings arrived upon by the Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur and allowed the appeal filed by assessee. The operative portion of the CESTAT order dated 29^th June 2021 is re-produced as under:

"…..the fact remains that entitlement of the appellant to refund of duty paid got finalised only on 21.04.2017 hence the relevant date under Section 11B (ec) is none but 21.04.2017. Refund claim is filed on 19.02.2018 which, therefore, is very much within one year thereof, hence, wrongly been held to be barred by time. Accordingly, I set aside the findings arrived upon by the Commissioner (Appeals). As a result, appeal stands allowed"

9. Thereafter, petitioner’s request to refund the claim, was turned down again, while