2005 (11) TMI 416 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim filed by M/s. Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Ltd.
2. Adjustment of refund against an earlier demand of duty.
3. Appeal against the order of the original authority.
4. Interpretation of Board's Circular regarding erroneous refund orders.
5. Entitlement to cash refund and unjust enrichment.

Analysis:

1. The case involved M/s. Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Ltd. (TNNPL) clearing paper to a customer and subsequently filing a refund claim for duty paid during 1999-2000. The original authority granted the refund, noting that the duty paid had not been passed on to the buyer. However, the Department appealed against the refund sanction, claiming unjust enrichment due to the buyer availing duty rebate.

2. M/s. TNNPL appealed against the original authority's decision to adjust the refund amount against a prior duty demand. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed this appeal, citing a previous order that set aside the refund order. The Tribunal emphasized that the decision in the earlier appeal was final and binding since M/s. TNNPL did not challenge it.

3. The Tribunal rejected the argument that the present appeal should be considered against both orders, clarifying that the issue in each appeal was distinct. The first order addressed M/s. TNNPL's entitlement to cash refund, while the second concerned the adjustment of the refund against a previous duty demand.

4. The Tribunal addressed the Department's reliance on a Circular, stating that recovery under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act applies only when a cash refund is issued. Since no cash refund was provided in this case, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision to disallow the refund.

5. Given that the entitlement to cash refund was settled in a previous order, the Tribunal affirmed the dismissal of the present appeal against the adjustment of the refund amount. The decision was based on the fact that the issue had already been conclusively determined in the earlier appeal, making the challenge against the subsequent order invalid.