2003 (5) TMI 386 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Appeal challenging refund rejection of pre-deposit and duty amount.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in glass bottle manufacturing, challenged an order demanding differential duty, which was finalized at about Rs. 22.46 lakhs. The Commissioner (Appeals) directed a pre-deposit of Rs. 15 lakhs, later remanding the matter for re-adjudication. The Assistant Commissioner then confirmed a demand of Rs. 1,05,74,371/-. The appellant filed a refund claim after subsequent legal proceedings, which was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner for various reasons, including unjust enrichment concerns.

The appellant contended that the pre-deposit amount should be refunded as it was treated as payment towards duty erroneously. Citing legal precedents, the appellant argued that the pre-deposit continued to be so, especially after the original order was set aside. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's argument that the appellant couldn't claim a refund due to not challenging a specific order.

Regarding the duty amount of Rs. 3,35,026/- paid provisionally, the Tribunal referred to legal judgments stating that such payments are not governed by specific sections. It held that the appellant was entitled to the refund of the entire amount, including interest on the pre-deposit and duty refundable. The order rejecting the refund was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, directing payment within specified timelines.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the refund of Rs. 18,35,026/- to the appellant, along with interest as per the notified rate. The decision was based on legal principles and precedents, ensuring the appellant's entitlement to the refund amounts.