2009 (12) TMI 795 - AT - Central Excise

Issues:
1. Appeal against orders-in-appeal No. 39/2006 (V-II) C.E. & 2/2006 (V-II) C.E. dated 18-1-2006.
2. Exemption on Molasses under Notification No. 67/95-C.E., dated 1-3-1995 for captive consumption.
3. Modvat credit on inputs for the manufacture of Rectified Spirit.
4. Demand of 8% duty on Rectified Spirit under Rules 57C and 57CC of Central Excise Rules.
5. Refund claim of the differential duty between the amount demanded and the duty paid.
6. Rejection of refund claim by the jurisdictional Dy. Commissioner.
7. Appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and subsequent decision.
8. Sustainability of the refund claim under law.
9. Time-barred refund claim under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944.
10. Dispute over the duty payment under Rule 57CC of Central Excise Rules.
11. Finality of the matter based on previous orders.
12. Eligibility for the refund of excess duty paid.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was made against orders-in-appeal No. 39/2006 (V-II) C.E. & 2/2006 (V-II) C.E. dated 18-1-2006, concerning the exemption on Molasses under Notification No. 67/95-C.E. for captive consumption. The appellant, a manufacturer of various spirits, availed Modvat credit on inputs and faced a demand for 8% duty on Rectified Spirit under Central Excise Rules. The initial duty demand was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner, but the Commissioner (Appeals) ruled in favor of the assessee, leading to an appeal to CESTAT, Bangalore.

2. The jurisdictional Dy. Commissioner rejected the refund claim of the appellant, citing prematurity, despite the ongoing appeal process. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, emphasizing the finality of the matter based on previous orders. The rejection of the refund claim was deemed sustainable under the law, with the Commissioner holding that the matter was sub-judice and the refund claim did not arise due to previous settlements.

3. The appellant contended that the duty payment under Rule 57CC was more economical than reversing the credit on Molasses. The Deputy Commissioner demanded duty under Rule 57CC, while the appellant filed a refund claim for the excess duty paid. The time-barred nature of the refund claim was disputed by the appellant, citing the Show Cause Notice issued by the department challenging previous assessments.

4. CESTAT, Bangalore, considered the submissions and records, noting that the matter was settled in favor of the Revenue by a previous order. The Bench rejected the appeal, emphasizing that the appellant had already reversed the credit on inputs for exempted goods, making the demand for 8% duty improper. The finality of the issue was highlighted, leading to the rejection of the appellant's claim for a refund of excess duty paid.

5. The impugned order was deemed correct and legal, with no infirmities found. The appeal filed by the appellant was ultimately rejected based on the finality of the matter and the previous decisions made by the authorities. The appellant's argument for a refund was dismissed, and the order was upheld as legally sound and valid.

← Previous Next →