The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has directed the excise duty refund to Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL) paid under protest.The bench of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and Raju (Technical Member) has observed that the appellant, IOCL, had paid the duty on the behest of the audit objection, which itself is a payment of duty under...
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has directed the excise duty refund to Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL) paid under protest.
The bench of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and Raju (Technical Member) has observed that the appellant, IOCL, had paid the duty on the behest of the audit objection, which itself is a payment of duty under protest. Moreover, the appellant has also clearly mentioned in their TR-6 challan that the payment of duty is under protest. The appellant has also submitted a letter declaring that payment of duty was made under protest. In this position, the limitation provided under Section 11B is not applicable for refunding the excise duty.
In respect of warehouse goods, the appellant/assessee, IOCL, was collecting an amount under the head of other charges on which excise duty was not paid.
The department contended that the duty on other charges is required to be paid. On the basis of the audit, the appellant paid an amount of Rs. 93,36,942 via TR-6 challan "under protest" and informed the department.
The sanctioning authority rejected the refund claim based on the grounds that the refund was filed on September 18, 2012, and the refund claim for duty was paid on March 30, 2006, i.e., after more than 6 years.
The appellant contended that the amount was voluntarily deposited but "under protest at the behest of the department. Therefore, the limitation under Section 11B is not applicable.
The issue raised was whether the refund claim filed by the appellant is barred by limitation when the excise duty for which the refund sought was paid was paid under protest.
The tribunal held that merely by filing the appeal, the appellant’s refund cannot be withheld, which has been clarified by the Central Board of Excise Customs in various circulars from time to time, and that unless a stay is obtained from the Higher Court, the refund cannot be kept pending.
Case Title: Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Versus C.C.E. & S.T.-Surat-ii
Case No.: Excise Appeal No. 11891 of 2016- DB
Date: 18.09.2023
Counsel For Appellant: Sachin Chitnis, Kiran Charan
Counsel For Respondent: R.K. Agarwal