9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (12) TMI 27 - AT - Central ExciseSetting aside of Refund claim of Pre-deposit amount - Assessee contended that the Assistant Commissioner is statutorily empowered to consider process and grant refund u/s 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 Held that - Any deposit made during investigation or after adjudication has to be refunded to the assessee when the OIO is set aside and no quantification has been done by passing a suitable order as directed by CESTAT in its order dt. 24/02/2011 Relying upon Voltas Limited Vs. UOI 1998 (11) TMI 137 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI - the demand was set aside by CESTAT vide order dt. 24/02/2011 and there is no sign of quantification for a period of over 2 years AC was right in sanctioning the refund of remaining amount of deposit made by the appellant after making suitable adjustments observations of the OIA dt. 22/02/2013 passed by Commr (A) set aside - Decided in favour of Assessee.
Issues:
1. Authority of Assistant Commissioner to quantify duty as per CESTAT's order. 2. Refund claim filed by the appellant and the statutory empowerment of Assistant Commissioner. 3. Judicial pronouncements and case laws relied upon by both parties. 4. Refund of deposit made during investigation when OIO is set aside. Analysis: Issue 1: The appeal was filed against the order of Commissioner (A) setting aside the OIO sanctioning a refund claim by the appellant in view of CESTAT's final order. Commissioner (A) held that the Assistant Collector lacked authority to quantify duty as per CESTAT's order. The appellant argued that the Assistant Commissioner is empowered to grant refunds under Sec. 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, citing various case laws in support. Issue 2: The appellant filed a refund claim after CESTAT's final order, which was partially sanctioned. The appellant contended that the refund should be granted as the OIO was set aside by CESTAT. The Assistant Commissioner was justified in sanctioning the remaining refund amount after adjustments following the setting aside of the OIO by CESTAT. The Commissioner's finding that the Assistant Commissioner lacked authority to quantify the demand was deemed misplaced. Issue 3: Both parties relied on different case laws to support their arguments. The appellant cited cases such as Voltas Limited Vs. UOI and Blue Star Ltd. Vs. Union of India to establish the statutory empowerment of the Assistant Commissioner in granting refunds. The appellant also emphasized the need for refund when an OIO is set aside, as per judicial pronouncements like Raymond Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Airport) Mumbai. Issue 4: The Tribunal observed that any deposit made during investigation or adjudication must be refunded to the assessee when the OIO is set aside, and no quantification is done. In this case, the OIO confirming the demand was set aside by CESTAT, yet no quantification was done for over two years. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner's sanctioning of the remaining refund amount was deemed appropriate, representing the deposit made by the appellant during the investigation. In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and upheld the Assistant Commissioner's decision, allowing the appeal filed by the appellant.
|
