2013 (10) TMI 325 - AT - Central Excise

Refund Claim 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 has 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. These were totally new grounds whereas the Commissioner had rejected the claim on the ground that the respondent is not eligible for exemption; goods cannot be considered as exported and cannot be considered as non-excisable - Since classification and liability to Central Excise duty have attained finality, the refund claim has no merit - the refund claim also does not have any merit and has thus been correctly rejected by the original adjudicating authority and upheld by Commissioner (Appeals) Decided against Assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Rejection of a refund claim of Rs.45,49,936
- Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No.YPP/820/SRT/2003/2971
- Infructuous nature of the appeal due to a previous order
- Contention between the appellant and the Revenue regarding the appeal dismissal

Issue 1: Rejection of a Refund Claim of Rs.45,49,936
The appellant filed a refund claim of Rs.45,49,936, which was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Order-in-Original. The appeal was made against this rejection, leading to a detailed examination of the case records by the Tribunal.

Issue 2: Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No.YPP/820/SRT/2003/2971
The appeal was based on the rejection of the refund claim by the Assistant Commissioner and the subsequent affirmation of this decision by the Commissioner (Appeals). Both parties presented their arguments, with the appellant contending that the appeal had become infructuous due to a prior order issued by the Ahmedabad Bench in a related matter involving the same appellant.

Issue 3: Infructuous Nature of the Appeal Due to a Previous Order
The appellant's representative argued that a previous order by the Ahmedabad Bench in a related case had rendered the current appeal infructuous. The Tribunal reviewed the facts of the previous order, which involved two refund claims by the appellant, and concluded that the classification and liability to Central Excise duty had been finalized in that case. As a result, the Tribunal determined that the present refund claim lacked merit and should be dismissed.

Issue 4: Contention Between the Appellant and the Revenue Regarding the Appeal Dismissal
The Revenue's representative contested the appellant's claim of the appeal becoming infructuous, citing a previous order where the Revenue's appeal had been allowed. However, after hearing both sides and examining the case records, the Tribunal found that the previous order by the Ahmedabad Bench had settled the classification and payment of Central Excise duty for the appellant. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the present appeal, stating that it had become infructuous in light of the prior order.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment in this case revolved around the rejection of a refund claim, the appeal against the Order-in-Appeal, the impact of a previous order on the current appeal, and the contention between the appellant and the Revenue. The Tribunal ultimately dismissed the appeal, deeming it infructuous due to a prior order that had finalized the classification and payment of Central Excise duty for the appellant.