2015 (4) TMI 1148 - AT - Central Excise

Recovery - Rebate sanctioned - export of P&P medicaments - Held that - the present demands by the Commissioner are consequential demands raised by the Revenue for recovery of the rebate claims already sanctioned, in the light of acceptance of Revenue appeals by Commissioner(Appeals) and revisionary authority. As the said two orders passed by Commissioner(Appeals) as also by the revisionary authority stand set aside by the Hon ble Delhi High Court, the consequential demands raised by the Revenue no longer survive. We also take note of the specific order of the Hon ble High Court of Delhi setting aside the consequential demands. As such, it is safe to conclude that the impugned order has become non est, in the light of the Hon ble High Court of Delhi s order. The same is accordingly set aside and appeal is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute over rebate of excise duty on exported medicaments.
2. Validity of orders passed by different authorities.
3. Impact of Delhi High Court judgment on the present case.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding the rebate of excise duty on exported medicaments. The appellant exported the goods and claimed a rebate of the excise duty paid. The original adjudicating authority sanctioned the rebate, but the Revenue challenged this decision through appeals filed before the Commissioner(Appeals). The Commissioner(Appeals) allowed the Revenue's appeals, leading to the revisionary authority partially upholding the decision. Subsequently, show-cause notices were issued proposing to recover the erroneously granted rebate, which the Commissioner confirmed in the impugned order.

2. The appellant's revision application against the Commissioner(Appeals) order was rejected. However, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in a separate judgment, set aside the orders passed by the revisionary authority and reinstated the original decision of the Assistant Commissioner regarding the rebate of excise duty. The High Court specifically nullified the consequential demands raised by the Revenue based on the earlier orders of the Commissioner(Appeals) and the revisionary authority.

3. Considering the Delhi High Court's ruling, the Appellate Tribunal observed that the consequential demands raised by the Revenue were no longer valid as the High Court had set aside the previous orders. Therefore, the impugned order confirming the recovery of the rebate was deemed non est and subsequently set aside by the Tribunal. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant, and the stay petition was disposed of accordingly. The Tribunal's decision was pronounced and dictated in open court, bringing closure to the legal proceedings.