2004 (3) TMI 633 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether refund of Central Excise duty is admissible to the appellant.

Analysis:
The appeal involved the issue of whether a refund of Central Excise duty was admissible to M/s. Aradhana Industries Pvt. Ltd. The appellant claimed a refund of duty paid on account of including the length of galleries in the Hot Air Stenter. The Deputy Commissioner had determined their total capacity of production, including the length of galleries, which the appellants contested based on subsequent decisions by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Supreme Court. The appellant argued that the Deputy Commissioner's order was ab initio void, passed in excess of authority and without jurisdiction, and in violation of natural justice principles. However, the Revenue rejected the refund claim, stating that the order determining the annual capacity had attained finality and was not challenged in any appellate forum. The appellant's contention that the order was void and could be challenged in collateral proceedings was countered by the Revenue, citing the decision in C.C.E. v. Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal considered both parties' submissions and held that the Deputy Commissioner, in finalizing the annual capacity of production in November 2000, was empowered to do so under Rule 4 of the Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant had not challenged the Deputy Commissioner's order, which had attained finality. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument that subsequent decisions by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal or the Supreme Court invalidated the order. It was held that the appellant could not claim a refund based on decisions in other cases not filed by them. The Tribunal cited the decision in Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd., stating that if an appealable order is not challenged, it cannot be questioned later in a refund proceeding. The Tribunal also clarified that the present proceedings were not collateral but initiated by the appellants themselves for claiming a refund after the decision in the Sangam Processors Bhilwara Ltd. case. The Tribunal found no merit in the appeal and rejected it.