Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2015 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 2627 - AT - Central ExciseRefund claim - claim on the ground that finished goods removed to its Madras Depot on payment of duty were found substandard, and as such, the same were returned to the factory and upon re-packing, the same were cleared on payment of Central Excise Duty - Held that - no security to the satisfaction of this Tribunal has been furnished by the appellant, entitling it to get the refund from the Original Authority - for the purpose of meeting the ends of justice, the appellant should be given an opportunity to furnish the bond for the refund amount - appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Refund claim under Rule 173L of Central Excise Rules, 1944 for double payment of duty; Compliance with High Court directions for refund claim; Bond requirement for refund amount. Analysis: The appellant filed a refund claim under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, due to double payment of Central Excise Duty on the same consignment. The claim was initially rejected by the adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals). However, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, leading to a fresh refund claim filed by the appellant before the Central Excise Authorities. The Department, aggrieved by the Tribunal's order, filed a reference application before the High Court of Allahabad and a stay application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the stay application, prompting the Department to file a writ petition before the High Court. The High Court directed the Department to pay the amount under the Tribunal's order and allowed withdrawal upon furnishing adequate security. Despite the High Court's directions, the appellant failed to comply fully, leading to a subsequent order by the Dy. Commissioner denying the refund claim. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, resulting in the current appeal before the Tribunal. Upon hearing both sides and reviewing the records, the Tribunal noted the appellant's non-compliance with the High Court's order. However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal directed the appellant to furnish a bond for the refund amount. The appellant was instructed to submit the bond to the Jurisdictional Dy. Commissioner for the refund process to proceed. Ultimately, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal by directing the appellant to furnish the bond for the refund amount, ensuring compliance with the High Court's orders for the refund claim to be processed successfully.
|