2014 (12) TMI 1031 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of refund claim - Notification No. 225/1986-C.E., dated 3-4-1986 - held that - Though the appellants were taking up the matter with their jurisdictional Central Excise authorities by repeated correspondence, but it is seen that no refund claim was filed by the appellant with the department. As such, the said letter of the Assistant Commissioner cannot be held to be an appealable order and Commissioner (Appeals) was not within his powers to entertain the appeal filed against the letter addressed by the Assistant Commissioner to the appellant. Otherwise also without there being any refund application by the appellants, the lower authorities could not have decided the refund claim either by rejecting the same or by accepting the same. - Decided against assesse.

Issues:
Manufacture of Polyester Staple Fibre (PSF) from Mono Ethylene Glycol (MEG) - DMT under Notification No. 225/1986-C.E., debit entry in RG 23A Pt. II register by Central Excise Inspector, absence of response from department, refund claim, dismissal of appeal by Commissioner (Appeals), appeal against Assistant Commissioner's letter, jurisdictional Central Excise authorities' correspondence, appealability of Assistant Commissioner's letter as an order, rejection of appeal by the Tribunal.

Analysis:

1. Manufacture of PSF from MEG - DMT under Notification No. 225/1986-C.E.:
The appellant, a manufacturer of Polyester Staple Fibre (PSF) from Mono Ethylene Glycol (MEG) - DMT, availed the facility of duty set-off under Notification No. 225/1986-C.E. The dispute arose due to a debit entry of Rs. 1,27,967 made by the Central Excise Inspector in the RG 23A Pt. II register during a visit to the factory, based on an order from the Assistant Commissioner, which the appellant claimed they never received.

2. Debit Entry Dispute and Lack of Departmental Response:
The appellant disputed the debit entry made by the Inspector, but the department did not respond to their representations. Even when a refund claim was filed, there was no response from the department. After 23 years, the Assistant Commissioner informed the appellant that due to the lack of records, the matter could not be pursued. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal against the Assistant Commissioner's decision.

3. Tribunal's Interim Order and Department's Submission:
The Tribunal, in an interim order, directed the Revenue to confirm whether the Assistant Commissioner's order was dispatched to the appellant. The Additional Commissioner (Review) Central Excise stated that due to the division of the office and the age of the matter, relevant papers were not available. The department contended that since the goods were received after 3-4-1986, the appellant was not entitled to set-off credit.

4. Appellant's Correspondence and Appeal:
The appellant had regularly corresponded with the Revenue requesting a copy of the order that led to the debit entry. They filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the Assistant Commissioner's letter, which stated that no orders were passed in the appellant's favor and that the case was stale with no provision under central excise law for consideration of such cases.

5. Appealability of Assistant Commissioner's Letter:
The Tribunal found that the Assistant Commissioner's letter was not an appealable order as it did not reject any refund claim filed by the appellant. Without a refund application, the lower authorities could not have decided on the refund claim. The Commissioner (Appeals) did not have the authority to entertain the appeal against the Assistant Commissioner's letter.

6. Conclusion and Rejection of Appeal:
The Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's appeal and rejected it, stating that the Assistant Commissioner's letter was not an appealable order, and without a refund application, the lower authorities could not have decided on the refund claim. The appeal was dismissed on 24-7-2014.

← Previous Next →