2015 (8) TMI 1321 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - merchant over time (MOT) paid for stopping of export container - Held that - considering the fact that the Revenue has denied the refund claim only on the ground that the matter is sub judice before the Hon ble High Court and the Revenue appeal has already been dismissed by the Hon ble Rajasthan High Court vide order dated 27th January, 2015, I am of the considered view that the appellant shall be eligible for the refund of the MOT charges paid by it under protest. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside. - Decided in favour of appellant

Summary

Issues:
Refund of merchant over time (MOT) charges denied due to sub judice matter before High Court.

Analysis:
During the period of January 2011 to March 2012, the appellant, engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn and synthetic yarn, filed a refund application for &8377;67,160 claiming refund of MOT charges paid for stopping export containers. However, the refund was denied by the authorities citing a previous order dated 12.04.2007 passed by the Tribunal, which was under appeal before the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, and the operation of the Tribunal's order had been stayed by the High Court. The appellant's advocate argued that the appeal against the Tribunal's order had been disposed of by the High Court on 27th January 2015 in favor of the appellant, making them eligible for the refund as the issue had been settled by the High Court judgment.

The Department's representative also acknowledged that the Tribunal's decision had been upheld by the High Court, and the Department's appeal had been dismissed. The Tribunal, after considering that the only reason for denying the refund was the sub judice status before the High Court, and since the Department's appeal had been dismissed by the High Court, concluded that the appellant was eligible for the refund of the MOT charges paid under protest. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief under the law.

This judgment highlights the importance of the finality of legal decisions and the impact of higher court judgments on pending matters. It emphasizes that once a higher court has ruled on an issue, the lower authorities should abide by that decision, ensuring justice and fairness in the legal process.