2007 (7) TMI 113 - AT - Central Excise

Refund - Appellant claim for refund of the amount deposited on the clearance of non excisable SPG from their factory to the neighbouring unit in the direction of officer - After considering large number of complexity the tribunal allowed the refund to the appellant

Summary

Issues:
- Eligibility for refund claim of Rs. 1,04,717/- paid by the appellant.
- Consideration of excisability of 'Spent Propylene Gas'.
- Finality of previous orders and appeals.

Eligibility for Refund Claim:
The case involved the appellant's factory clearing 'Spent Propylene Gas' to a neighboring unit, leading to a demand of Rs. 1,04,717/-. The appellant paid this amount but later filed a refund claim, which was rejected by lower authorities as premature. The Tribunal's order favored the appellant, stating that the gas was not excisable. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the refund claim based on previous proceedings. However, the Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to a refund under Section 35F, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

Excisability of 'Spent Propylene Gas':
The central issue revolved around the excisability of 'Spent Propylene Gas' produced by the appellant. The Tribunal's order clarified that waste gas being put to some use does not automatically make it excisable unless a requisite market is shown. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that supplying the gas to a neighboring unit did not render it excisable. This decision formed the basis for allowing the refund claim and directing the refund of the amount paid by the appellant.

Finality of Previous Orders and Appeals:
The Commissioner (Appeals) had rejected the refund claim, citing finality of previous orders and abandonment of litigation. However, the Tribunal's subsequent order in favor of the appellant superseded these considerations. The Tribunal's decision to allow the appeal and grant consequential relief, including the refund of the amount paid, demonstrated that the previous rejection of the refund claim was not valid in light of the Tribunal's ruling on the excisability of 'Spent Propylene Gas'. As no appeal was filed against the Tribunal's order, the appellant was entitled to the refund under Section 35F.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified the excisability of 'Spent Propylene Gas', upheld the appellant's eligibility for the refund claim, and emphasized the importance of the Tribunal's decision in determining the outcome of the case, leading to the allowance of the appeal and the refund of the amount paid by the appellant.