2004 (1) TMI 522 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim of Rs. 1,00,571/- as a consequential relief.
2. Applicability of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act to the refund claim.
3. Appeal against the finding of the Commissioner.
4. Correlation of previous refund amounts with the current refund claim.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a refund claim of Rs. 1,00,571/- sought by the appellants as a consequential relief arising from a previous order-in-appeal. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim stating that the appellants did not protest against the adjustment of previous refunds and did not follow the required procedure under Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, rendering the claim time-barred.

2. The Commissioner held that Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, which deals with refund claims, was not applicable to the present situation as the refund was a consequential benefit arising from the appellate forum's order. This legal position was considered settled, indicating that the procedural requirements under Section 11B did not apply to such refunds.

3. The Revenue appealed against the Commissioner's finding, arguing that the refund claim should be subject to the provisions of Section 11B. However, upon hearing both sides, it was noted that the Revenue's grounds for appeal mirrored those of the adjudicating authority, indicating a lack of new arguments or evidence.

4. The Tribunal observed that the correlation made by the adjudicating authority between the previous refund amounts and the current claim was incorrect. The previous refunds were related to an old claim and had been adjusted against a previous demand, which was a separate transaction. The current refund claim arose from a different order-in-appeal, and the appellants had no legal grounds to claim it earlier. The Tribunal emphasized that the authorities should have granted the refund suo moto, given the circumstances of the case.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found the Revenue's appeal to be without merit and upheld the order of the Commissioner, affirming the appellants' right to the refund claim of Rs. 1,00,571/- as a consequential relief.