2014 (7) TMI 400 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - Power of commissioner - Reduction in refund claim - Held that - It is an admitted fact that against the order dated 25.10.2005 of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), no stay has been obtained by the Revenue from this Tribunal. In the meantime the Asst. Commissioner has no power to reduce the refund claim to ₹ 17,17,011/-. In these circumstances, no infirmity in the impugned order is found and the same is upheld - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against the impugned order allowing the refund claim of the respondent.
- Reduction of the refund claim amount by the Asst. Commissioner.
- Lack of stay obtained by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the impugned order dated 22.05.2006, where the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the refund claim of the respondent amounting to &8377; 45,36,264/-. The Revenue contested this decision, leading to the matter being brought before the tribunal for disposal.

2. The respondent's refund claim was initially rejected by the adjudication authority, but upon appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the claim in full. Subsequently, the Asst. Commissioner unilaterally reduced the refund amount to &8377; 17,17,011/-, which prompted the respondent to file an appeal against this reduction. The Asst. Commissioner's action of reducing the refund claim was deemed unauthorized, as he lacked the power to do so.

3. The tribunal, under the judgment delivered by Ashok Jindal, noted that the Revenue had not obtained a stay against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 25.10.2005. Consequently, the Asst. Commissioner's decision to reduce the refund claim amount was considered invalid. As a result, the tribunal found no fault in the impugned order and upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals), dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The Cross Objection filed by the respondent was also disposed of in light of these findings.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment addresses the issues raised in the appeal, the unauthorized reduction of the refund claim amount, and the significance of obtaining a stay against the Commissioner (Appeals) order.