2025-VIL-965-RAJ-CE

CENTRAL EXCISE High Court Cases

Central Excise – Refund pursuant to order passed by CESTAT, Limitation Period - After a chequered litigation history, the CESTAT finally upheld the petitioner's contention and set aside the impugned order - Petitioner filed a refund claim which was rejected on the ground that it was time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Whether the rejection of the petitioner's refund claim on the ground of limitation was legally sustainable – HELD - The CESTAT had earlier set aside the finding on the issue of limitation and allowed the petitioner's appeal. This order of the CESTAT had attained finality as it was not challenged by the Department - The rejection of the refund claim on the ground of limitation was perverse and unsustainable in law, especially when the objection of limitation had already been rejected by the CESTAT. The petitioner had to undergo a chequered litigation history spanning over two decades to get its rightful refund and it would be unjust to relegate the petitioner to the windmill of statutory appeals – the approach adopted by the Department clearly reflects that they are time and again harassing petitioner on the same ground, which has already been adjudged as unsustainable by the CESTAT and has attained legal quietus - The department is under a statutory obligation to refund the amount with interest. In order to compensate petitioner for unjust hardship suffered at the hands of arbitrary action by respondents-department, the Court is inclined to award interest @ 12% p.a. on the refund amount. The interest shall be calculated from the date of the first refund application until the date of payment of refund – The writ petition is allowed

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page