Commissioner Of Central Excise, Salem vs The Superintenting Engineer
- CitationAppeal No.SLM-CEX-000-APP-031-11, dated 10.05.2011passed by the Commissioner of Centra
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a refund claim is found to be time barred, the authority rejecting it must give reasons for that finding; a bare conclusion of limitation without reasoning cannot stand. Where a claimant has paid duty under protest and that fact is recorded in the adjudication record, and the appellate authority has not found the claim time barred, the Revenue bears the burden of placing material before the Tribunal to show that the claim was barred by limitation; absent such material, the Tribunal cannot hold the claim time barred and the Revenue's appeal fails.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.SLM-CEX-000-APP-031-11, dated 10.05.2011passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Salem]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SALEM APPELLANT
Versus
THE SUPERINTENTING ENGINEER, TNEB CIRCLE, ERODE RESPONDENT
Appearance:
For the Appellant Shri L. Paneerselvan, AC AR)
For the Respondent None
CORAM:
Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member
Date of hearing/decision 25-08-2015
FINAL ORDER NO.41143/2015
None present for the respondent.
2. Consequent upon the order of the Tribunal dated 15.02.2000 refund arose. The refund so arose was subject to test of unjust enrichment and time bar. But learned Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded that the lower authority held that certain documents were not produced to process the refund claim.
3. The Adjudicating authority had held that consumption of the RCC poles manufactured by assessee does not give rise to the question of unjust enrichment and claim was time barred. While holding so, he did not give any reason to appreciate whether the claim was time barred or not.
4. Heard Revenue. There was protracted litigation between department and the assesse on the dutiability. Ultimately, when the Tribunal decided the issue, the appellant had come with grounds of appeal stating that payment of duty under protest was not disputed. A copy of the letter showing deposit of money under protest was produced before the authority below. Para 11 of the de novo proceedings dated 15.11.2000 records this fact. This comes out from para 3 of the appellate order. The Commissioner (Appeals) did not find that the claim was time barred. In absence of any material from Revenue, it is not possible to appreciate that the claim of the assessee was barred by limitation. Therefore, Revenue appeal is dismissed. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(D.N. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER
ksr 06-09-2015
DRAFT Remarks
I II III
Date of dictation 25.08.2015
Draft Order - Date of typing 02.09.2015
Fair Order Typing 06.09.2015
Date of number and date of dispatch 08/09/2015
2 E/00401/2011
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free