2005 (11) TMI 328 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim based on failure to produce re-warehousing certificate within stipulated period.
2. Interpretation of Rule 156B of the Central Excise Rules for refund eligibility.
3. Authority of original order and modification of the same for refund claims.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., filed an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal dated 16-2-2005 for not submitting re-warehousing certificates within the prescribed period. The Commissioner of Central Excise issued a show cause notice for contravention of Central Excise Rules due to the absence of AR3As. The original order demanded duty on the quantities of Reduced Crude Oil (RCO) removed without re-warehousing certificates. Despite subsequent receipt of re-warehousing certificates, the refund claim was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).

2. The appellant argued that once re-warehousing certificates were obtained, their refund claims should have been decided under Rule 156B of the Central Excise Rules. On the Revenue's behalf, it was contended that the original order under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules confirmed the duty, and the Commissioner (Appeals) lacked authority to modify this order. The original authority rejected the refund claim under Rule 156B, stating the duty was not paid under said rule, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).

3. The Tribunal found that duty was paid by the appellant following the original order, and any refund could only be granted if this order was modified or set aside. The Commissioner (Appeals)'s direction to examine the claim under Rule 156B did not alter the original order's binding nature. As the duty was paid based on the original order, the refund claim was deemed inadmissible. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, concluding that the impugned order did not require any intervention, ultimately rejecting the appeal.