2013 (4) TMI 648 - AT - Central Excise

Rejection of refund claim refund of amount deposited during the pendency of the case - Held that - Assessee herein had paid the dues/amount voluntarily through PLA on contention raised by the revenue related to excisibilty of its manufactured goods. It is also seen that once the Tribunal has held that the activity is not amounting to manufacture and is not being upturned by higher judicial fora, the amount which has been paid to pursue the appeal before the higher judicial fora, needs to be refunded to the assessee, is the law which has been settled. I find that the first appellate authority has correctly followed the law in this case. The appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute over excisability of re-glass lined equipment
2. Settlement of excisability issue by Order-in-Appeal
3. Refund claim rejection by Order-in-Original
4. Appeal against Order-in-Original rejection
5. Tribunal's order on re-glasslining process not amounting to manufacture
6. Dispute over refund claim amount
7. Challenge to Tribunal's order by Revenue
8. Applicability of self-assessment procedure for duty refund

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal setting aside the Order-in-Original that rejected the refund claim of the assessee for duty and interest amounts related to glass-lined equipment manufacturing under Chapter No.84 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
2. The dispute arose from excisability of re-glass lined equipment processed by the assessee on job work basis. The issue was initially settled by Order-in-Appeal, which held that the process did not amount to manufacturing under the Central Excise Act, 1944.
3. The assessee voluntarily paid dues amounting to Rs.9,17,254, including duty and interest. A refund claim was filed for Rs.9,17,954, which was partially granted by the Joint Commissioner, leading to the appeal before the first appellate authority.
4. The Revenue contended that the Tribunal's order on the manufacturing process was not final as an appeal was pending before the High Court. They argued that self-assessment payments without challenge do not warrant duty refunds.
5. The Tribunal had previously ruled that the re-glasslining process did not constitute manufacturing, leading to the duty paid being refundable. The first appellate authority upheld this decision based on the settled law.
6. The refund claim amount was disputed, with the appellant claiming the full refund based on the Tribunal's order. The authority relied on the Supreme Court's direction to follow Tribunal orders, leading to the allowance of the appeal in favor of the assessee.
7. The Revenue's challenge to the Tribunal's order was rejected, emphasizing the binding nature of Tribunal decisions on appellate authorities.
8. The first appellate authority's decision was upheld, concluding that the duty paid by the assessee was refundable due to the non-manufacturing nature of the process, as per the Tribunal's order.

This detailed analysis covers the key issues, arguments, and decisions outlined in the legal judgment, providing a comprehensive understanding of the case.