2005 (8) TMI 463 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim rejection by Assistant Commissioner based on Commissioner (Appeals) order.
2. Competency of Assistant Commissioner to review Commissioner (Appeals) order.
3. Finality of Commissioner (Appeals) order and consequential relief.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing refractory bricks, faced duty demands on goods tested in-house and manufactured in the workshop. The Commissioner (Appeals) dropped the demand, but the Assistant Commissioner rejected a refund claim of Rs. 1,69,236 based on the Commissioner's order. The appellant argued that the Order-in-Appeal covered the issue under Notification No. 217/86-C.E., not No. 281/86-C.E. The Assistant Commissioner's rejection was deemed arbitrary and illegal by the appellant.

2. The Assistant Commissioner's rejection was supported by the Department, but the Tribunal found it erroneous. The Assistant Commissioner's review of the Commissioner (Appeals) order was deemed beyond his competency. The Tribunal emphasized that once an Order-in-Appeal is passed and not modified, no further review is warranted. The Department's failure to appeal the Rs. 1,69,236 claim further strengthened the appellant's case for refund.

3. The Tribunal concluded that the Assistant Commissioner's actions were contrary to law. The finality of the Commissioner (Appeals) order was highlighted, emphasizing that the Assistant Commissioner lacked authority to review it. As no appeal was filed by the Department regarding the Rs. 1,69,236 claim, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and granted the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant, ensuring the refund claim was upheld.