9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (9) TMI 578 - AT - Central ExciseRefund Claim - Whether the Refund claim should be made - Held that - The refund claim should have been and could have been filed only after the issue of classification and liability to duty had been determined especially in view of the fact that the show cause notice proposing to demand Customs duty was issued on 25.10.2002 - It had to be noted that Hyundai preferred refund claims on 05.7.2002 and 21.01.2003 and both of them were rejected on 23.12.2003 by which time show cause notice had already been issued proposing demand of Customs duty which was the claim of the Hyundai for claiming the refund - After the rejection of both the refund claims on 23.12.2003 and 07.4.2003 ignoring the subsequent development of passing the order of the adjudicating authority, the Commissioner on 24.9.2003, Hyundai have continued parallel litigation in respect of the refund claims never disclosing the fact that the very same facts have already been considered and decided and had attained finality - appeal filed by the Revenue was allowed.
Issues involved:
1. Refund claims rejected by adjudicating authority. 2. Appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) rejected on the ground of locus-standi. 3. Appeal before Tribunal leading to remand back to Commissioner (Appeals). 4. Commissioner (Appeals) order dated 31.7.2008 challenged before Tribunal. 5. Commissioner (Appeals) order dated 24.3.2011 allowing refund. 6. Revenue's appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order. 7. Final decision on classification and liability to Central Excise duty. Issue 1: Refund claims rejected by adjudicating authority The case involved refund claims by Hyundai related to goods manufactured by L&T Limited under bond, claiming exemption from Central Excise duty. The adjudicating authority rejected the claims, citing the liability of Central Excise duty on such goods. Show cause notices were issued to L&T Limited, leading to the demand of customs duty. The Commissioner upheld the liability of Central Excise duty on L&T Limited, which was not appealed against. The Tribunal noted the finality of this decision, rendering the refund claims by Hyundai without merit due to the established liability of Central Excise duty on the goods. Issue 2: Appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) rejected on the ground of locus-standi Hyundai appealed before the Commissioner (Appeals) challenging the rejection of their refund claims. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal on the ground that Hyundai lacked locus-standi to claim the refund. This decision was further appealed before the Tribunal, which set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order, citing the lack of discussion on the claim's merit and the denial of an opportunity for Hyundai to present their case. The matter was remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision, allowing Hyundai to raise all issues. Issue 3: Appeal before Tribunal leading to remand back to Commissioner (Appeals) After the remand, the Commissioner (Appeals) reconsidered the case, leading to another appeal by Hyundai before the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted new grounds raised by Hyundai, including the nature of duty payable and classification of goods, which were not considered by lower authorities. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision, considering the new grounds raised by Hyundai. Issue 4: Commissioner (Appeals) order dated 31.7.2008 challenged before Tribunal The Commissioner (Appeals) passed an order on 31.7.2008, rejecting Hyundai's claims and holding that the goods attracted Customs duty, not Central Excise duty. Hyundai challenged this order before the Tribunal, which noted the failure to consider certain grounds and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision. Issue 5: Commissioner (Appeals) order dated 24.3.2011 allowing refund In a subsequent order dated 24.3.2011, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund to Hyundai, stating that the goods attracted Customs duty, not Central Excise duty. This decision was based on the classification of goods and other considerations. However, this decision was appealed by the Revenue before the Tribunal. Issue 6: Revenue's appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order The Revenue appealed against the Commissioner (Appeals) order dated 24.3.2011, arguing that the refund claim had no merit due to the finality of the classification and liability to Central Excise duty. The Tribunal considered the facts and circumstances of the case, noting the lack of necessity to delve into case laws cited by the respondents. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue, disposing of the cross objection filed by the respondents. Issue 7: Final decision on classification and liability to Central Excise duty The Tribunal, after thorough analysis, allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue, considering the finality of the classification and liability to Central Excise duty. Despite arguments presented by the respondents, the Tribunal concluded that the refund claim lacked merit in light of the established liability of Central Excise duty on the goods. The Tribunal upheld the decision in favor of the Revenue, disposing of the cross objection filed by the respondents.
|
