2003 (10) TMI 351 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Determination of the relevant date for claiming a refund in a case involving seized goods.

Analysis:

The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore revolved around the issue of whether the date of seizure or the date of the adjudication order is the pertinent date for claiming a refund. The Department contended that the refund claim was time-barred as per the date of payment or seizure being the relevant date. Conversely, the Commissioner (Appeals) opined that since the proceedings were dropped by the adjudicating authority, the date of the order should be considered for claiming the refund. The Commissioner analyzed the situation in detail, emphasizing that the date of adjudication is crucial for claiming a refund, as it signifies the point at which the appellants became aware of the proceedings being dropped, allowing them to claim a refund of the duty paid on the seized goods.

During the proceedings, Smt. Radha Arun, representing the Revenue, cited specific paras from the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Mafatlal Industries v. Union of India to support the Department's stance. On the other hand, Shri V.J. Sankaram, representing the Respondent, referred to relevant portions of the same case and also mentioned a decision by the Tribunal in the case of Suri Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore. After considering the arguments and submissions from both parties, the Tribunal examined the facts, circumstances, and the legal references provided. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no fault in the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, thereby upholding the relevance of the date of adjudication for claiming a refund in the case involving seized goods.