2003 (8) TMI 249 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim entitlement and power of Commissioner (Appeals) to remand the matter.

Analysis:
The issue in this case pertains to a refund claim, specifically whether the customer is entitled to a refund. The Counsel argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) wrongly concluded that the customer is not entitled to a refund. Reference was made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, emphasizing the provisions allowing for refund if the burden of duty has been borne solely by the purchaser. Additionally, a Tribunal case of Ferrous Engineering v. Collector of Central Excise was cited, highlighting that the amended legislation permits buyers of duty-paid goods to claim refunds. The Counsel contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) lacked the power to remand the matter, although it was acknowledged that the order was issued before an amendment to Section 35A.

Upon careful consideration of the facts, the Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals)'s assertion that the customer is not entitled to a refund was incorrect. The Tribunal, referencing the Supreme Court judgment and the Tribunal's previous decisions, ruled in favor of the customer's entitlement to a refund. The Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to reexamine the refund claim without being influenced by the Commissioner (Appeals)'s observations and to make a decision based on merit, providing the party with an opportunity. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order while deleting the observation regarding the customer's entitlement to a refund, thereby disposing of the appeal accordingly.