2015 (3) TMI 30 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - Held that - Details of the Finance Act, 2014 was not available when the case was adjudicated by the original authority as also the first appellate authority. Prima facie, we find that no duty is chargeable on the goods in view of the retrospective amendment made by the Finance Act, 2014 and the provisions contained thereunder will entitle the refund of duty already paid. Even M/s Hindustan Platinum Ltd. can file the refund claim. Since Finance Act, 2014 was not available when the case was adjudicated, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the original authority, who after considering various provisions of the Finance Act, 2014 will decide the matter afresh - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Duty on articles of precious metal, retrospective amendment by Finance Act 2014, refund claim eligibility, locus standi of the appellant.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a manufacturer of chemicals and fertilizers, used catalyst and catchment's gauze of precious metal for production. Before 1.3.2011, these items were exempt from duty. Post 1.3.2011, duty was imposed on articles of precious metal, including the catalyst and gauze. The appellant sent used items to M/s Hindustan Platinum Ltd. for recharging before 1.3.2011, but the items were not received back by that date, leading to a dispute over duty payment.

2. The Finance Act 2014 introduced amendments extending the exemption on articles of precious metal retrospectively till 16.3.2012. The Act allowed refunds for duties paid and permitted manufacturers to file refund claims within six months of its enactment. The appellant filed a refund claim for the duty paid on the recharged items by M/s Hindustan Platinum Ltd.

3. The Revenue's Special Counsel argued that the appellant lacked standing to claim a refund since M/s Hindustan Platinum Ltd. did not dispute the duty chargeability, and the appellant was not the buyer of the goods. However, the Tribunal noted that the Finance Act 2014, which could impact the duty liability, was not considered during the original adjudication.

4. Considering the retrospective amendment under the Finance Act 2014, the Tribunal found that no duty might be chargeable on the goods, entitling a refund of the duty already paid. The Tribunal remanded the case to the original authority to reexamine the matter in light of the Finance Act 2014. The Tribunal kept all issues open, including the appellant's eligibility for a refund.

5. The appeal was allowed for remand, with all issues remaining open for further consideration. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of the Finance Act 2014 in determining the duty liability and refund eligibility, directing a fresh assessment by the original authority in light of the retrospective amendments.