Back
CUSTOM EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MADRAS
MS. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, JJ.
Madura Coats (P.) Ltd. -Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai -Respondent
Final Order No. 855/2010 Appeal No. E/999/2004, 855 of 2010, E/999 of 2004
Decided On : 03-08-2010
S.S. Thakur,T.H. Rao
Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member - Heard both sides. The time chart furnished by the Ld. Vice President of the appellant's firm is reproduced below, which reflects the dates of various events relevant to this case:-
| S.No. | Events | Date |
| Demand confirmed | ||
| 1. | Rs. 1,20,20,519 | 18.07.96 |
| Rs. 42,79,600 | 27.12.96 | |
| —————————— | ||
| Rs. 1,63,00,119 | ||
| —————————— | ||
| 2. | Payment made against above demand pending appeal. | |
| Rs. 89,04,700 | 13.01.98 | |
| Rs. 73,95,419 | 27.03.98 | |
| —————————— | ||
| Rs. 1,63,00,119 | ||
| —————————— | ||
| 3. | Commissioner (A) passed common | 12.05.98 |
| Order dropping demand on | ||
| 4. | Refund claim for Rs. 11,20,508/- pending | |
| Department's appeal against order at (3) | ||
| Above, filed on | 26.03.02 | |
| 5. | Order of the Assistant Commissioner | |
| rejecting the above claim passed on | 18.09.02 | |
| 6. | Hon'ble Tribunal dismissed the OIA | |
| At (3) above on | 30.05.03 | |
| 7. | Impugned order passed by CCE (A) on | 31.03.04 |
2. We find that the appellants have made the payment for the impugned amounts in pursuance of the order confirming the demands pending appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The payments were made on 13.01.98 ad 27.03.98 and the lower appellate authority's order dropping the demand was passed on 12.05.98. It is settled law that duty paid pending appeal is in the nature of duty payment under protest. Moreover, the department filed an appeal against the lower appellate authority's order and that came to be decided in favour of the appellants only on 30.05.03, dismissing the department's appeal. The appellants had filed a refund claim well before that date on 26.03.02. Prior to 2007, no time limit was prescribed for filing of a refund claim consequent upon refund arising from an order of the Tribunal. Only by an amendment made in 2007, the definition of relevant date has been changed and the time limit has been prescribed for filing refund arising from an order passed by the Tribunal. As far as this case is concerned, the period is prior to the date of such amendment and in any case, the appellants had filed the refund claim even before the order of the Tribunal was passed. Hence, there is no justification whatsoever to hold the refund claim to be time barred. As regards the issue of unjust enrichment, we find that the lower appellate authority has given a finding in this regard in favour of the appellants and there is no appeal against such finding, by the department. Hence, we allow the appeal of the appellants setting aside the order of the lower appellate authority on the ground of limitation and direct the authorities below to grant consequential benefits to the appellants. The appeal is allowed.
