2005 (10) TMI 488 - Commissioner - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Entitlement to interest under Section 11BB of the Act.
2. Crediting amount to Consumer Welfare Fund.
3. Legal position on interest for collection/retention of amount.
4. Production of documentary evidence for transfer of amount.
5. Refund claim rejection based on passing on duty incidence.
6. Time-barred refund application.
7. Jurisdiction of lower authority post previous order.
8. Applicability of interest claim based on a void order.

Entitlement to Interest under Section 11BB of the Act:
The appeal was filed against an order sanctioning a refund but denying interest under Section 11BB. The appellant argued that interest should have been paid from the date of withdrawal of the amount from the High Court. The legal position was emphasized that interest is payable for collection/retention of amount without authority of law.

Crediting Amount to Consumer Welfare Fund:
The appellant contended that since the amount had not been credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund until the impugned order, interest was payable to them. They argued that interest cannot be transferred to the Fund and sought documentary evidence for the transfer of the correct amount.

Legal Position on Interest for Collection/Retention of Amount:
It was argued that interest is payable for collection/retention of an amount without authority of law. The appellant stressed that interest should have been paid to them as per Section 11BB of the Act.

Production of Documentary Evidence for Transfer of Amount:
The appellant requested the adjudicating authority to produce documentary evidence for the transfer of the correct amount, highlighting concerns of potential contempt of a Supreme Court order.

Refund Claim Rejection Based on Passing on Duty Incidence:
The refund claim was initially rejected on the grounds that the appellant had passed on the duty incidence to the buyer. This rejection was based on a dispute regarding the valuation of goods sold through the appellants.

Time-Barred Refund Application:
The Supreme Court had previously held that the refund application was time-barred under Section 11B of the Act. This decision was reinforced by a three-judge Bench ruling in favor of the Department based on non-compliance with Section 11B.

Jurisdiction of Lower Authority Post Previous Order:
The lower authority was deemed to have acted without jurisdiction in passing the order sanctioning the refund. It was highlighted that the lower authority became functus officio after the previous order and had no jurisdiction to reopen the issue without a remand or order for de novo adjudication.

Applicability of Interest Claim Based on a Void Order:
The contention that interest was payable based on the Deputy Commissioner's void order was dismissed. It was emphasized that no right can be claimed on the basis of a void order, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

In conclusion, the judgment dismissed the appeal based on various grounds, including the time-barred nature of the refund application, lack of jurisdiction of the lower authority to revisit the issue, and the void nature of the order on which the interest claim was based.