2015 (4) TMI 207 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Denial of rebate claim - name and address of Maritime Commissioner was either over written or wrongly mentioned - Held that - Commissioner (Appeals) has not passed any order w.r.t. rebate claim amount of ₹ 2587266/- as the said amount was sanctioned by ACCE in subsequent order. It is a settled legal position that an authority after passing the order become functus officio and cannot revise its own order. Commissioner (Appeals) has erred is not passing any order with respect to said claims. This legal infirmity is required to be rectified to meet the ends of justice. Therefore case is required to be remanded back for deciding the said claims. Commissioner appeal has already set aside the impugned Order-in-Original and therefore no order exists in r/o the rebate claim of ₹ 2587266. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Rejection of rebate claims by the original authority due to incorrect information provided.
- Commissioner (Appeals) deciding in favor of the applicant for some rebate claims but not all.
- Contesting the Order-in-Appeal in a revision application.
- Legal position regarding an authority becoming functus officio after passing an order.
- Rectification of legal infirmity to meet the ends of justice.
- Modification of the Order-in-Appeal and remanding the case back for deciding certain claims.

Analysis:
The revision application was filed by M/s. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) regarding rebate claims. The applicant, a manufacturer of excisable goods, had filed refund claims for duty paid by job-workers on exported goods. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claims citing discrepancies in the address of the rebate sanctioning authority. Subsequently, the Assistant Commissioner sanctioned two refund orders, leading to confusion regarding the total refund amount. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed a partial refund, prompting the applicant to contest the decision, highlighting the delay and hardship caused by the refund process.

The applicant argued that the Assistant Commissioner erred in passing the initial Order-in-Original without considering the delay in processing the refund claims. Despite the partial refund granted by the Commissioner (Appeals), the applicant requested a reduction in the total refund amount to account for the previously sanctioned sums. The applicant also raised concerns about the sequence of events following the Assistant Commissioner's appeal, which led to further confusion in the refund process.

The Government carefully reviewed the case records and observed that while the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed some rebate claims, no decision was made regarding certain amounts already sanctioned by the Assistant Commissioner. The Government noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have addressed all rebate claims and rectified the legal infirmity of not passing an order on specific claims. As per the legal principle that an authority becomes functus officio after passing an order, the case needed to be remanded back for a decision on the outstanding rebate claims to ensure justice.

In light of the above analysis, the Government modified the Order-in-Appeal and directed the original authority to reconsider the pending rebate claims in accordance with the impugned decision. The parties were to be given a fair opportunity for a hearing before a final decision on the case. The revision application was disposed of accordingly, emphasizing the need to rectify the legal discrepancies and ensure a just resolution for all rebate claims involved.