2013 (12) TMI 694 - AT - Central Excise

Adjustment of amount due towards the refund - Excise duty raised Penalty imposed under Rule 17 of Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008 and interest under Section 11AA of Central Excise Act, 1944 Held that - The mandate of law given u/s 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 nowhere debars Revenue from adjusting refund against dues recoverable by Central Government under any of the provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944 or the rules made thereunder - if demand recoverable from an assessee is not adjusted against refund if any due to an assessee, public interest shall be jeopardized - Thus, there was no arbitrary process of law followed by Adjudicating Authority Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appropriation of refunded amount towards excise duty demand, penalty, and interest.
2. Appeal challenging the appropriation decision.
3. Legal position on adjusting refund against existing demand.
4. Interpretation of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
5. Allowability of appropriation towards duty, penalty, and interest.

Analysis:
1. The case involved an adjudication against the respondent, resulting in excise duty demand, penalty, and interest. An order was passed to consider a refund application pending before the adjudicating authority, leading to an appropriation of the refunded amount towards the duty, penalty, and interest imposed by the adjudication order.

2. The respondent appealed the appropriation decision to the Commissioner (Appeals), who held in favor of the respondent, stating that the refunded amount should not have been fully appropriated. This decision was challenged by the Revenue before the Tribunal, arguing that the refund should be adjustable against the outstanding demand not discharged by the assessee.

3. The Tribunal considered the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing the importance of not jeopardizing public interest by allowing refunds without adjusting them against existing demands. It was highlighted that the law does not prohibit adjusting refunds against dues recoverable under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal disagreed with the Commissioner's decision, stating that sympathy should not override legal provisions.

4. The Tribunal further examined Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and concluded that there was no requirement for piecemeal adjustment. Therefore, the plea made by the respondent to only appropriate towards duty and not penalty or interest was not approved.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal, indicating that the appropriation towards duty, penalty, and interest was permissible under the law. The decision was made after considering the legal provisions and the need to uphold the integrity of the excise duty system.