2003 (3) TMI 557 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Calculation of rebate on excess sugar production under Notification No. 146/74-C.E., entitlement to refund based on subsequent Supreme Court judgments.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding the calculation of rebate on excess sugar production by the appellants under Notification No. 146/74-C.E. The Central Excise authorities sanctioned a partial rebate, leading to litigation over the method of excess production calculation.

2. The appellants filed writ petitions before the High Court of Madras challenging the calculation method. The High Court allowed the petitions, resulting in the appellants claiming a differential credit in their accounts. However, the Revenue disagreed with the High Court's decision and filed appeals up to the Supreme Court.

3. The Supreme Court, in the case of CCE v. Neoli Sugar Factory, set aside the High Court's order, leading to the dismissal of the appellants' review petition. Subsequently, in the case of M/s. The Saswad Mali Sahakari Sakhar, Karkhana Limited v. Union of India, the Supreme Court clarified that excess production should not be calculated based on average production.

4. Relying on the changed law declared by the Supreme Court, the appellants filed a refund application before the Assistant Commissioner under Section 11B, seeking a refund of the duty paid following the Supreme Court's decision against them.

5. The Revenue disputed the refund claim, arguing that the Supreme Court's decision against the appellants had attained finality, and the subsequent changed view did not apply to them. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the Revenue's argument, leading to the present appeal.

6. During the hearing, the appellants contended that they were entitled to the benefit of the subsequent law declared by the Supreme Court, as the earlier view in Neoli Sugar Factory's case was deemed incorrect in later judgments.

7. The Revenue opposed the appellants' claim, emphasizing that finality of court orders should be respected, and reopening settled disputes based on changed laws would undermine judicial discipline.

8. The Tribunal analyzed the submissions and held that the dispute had been conclusively settled by the Supreme Court in favor of the Revenue. Referring to the Mafatlal Industries case, the Tribunal emphasized that unless an order is set aside according to law, duty refunds cannot be claimed.

9. The Tribunal concluded that the subsequent changed view of the law did not automatically reopen settled disputes. While the changed law applied to pending cases, it did not affect finalized disputes. Refunds could not be granted to the appellants based on the subsequent judgment, as it would effectively reverse the settled Supreme Court decision between the parties.

10. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal and rejected it, upholding the finality of the Supreme Court's decision in the dispute over rebate calculation on excess sugar production.