2015 (10) TMI 1166 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - Appropriation of interest - Held that - Adjudicating authority sanctioned rebate claims under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and by exercising powers vested under Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, appropriated the amount towards interest outstanding arising out of the other demand. In view of the decision, in the appellants own case vide Final Order dated 16.7.2014, as amended by Miscellaneous Order dated 23.9.2014, the appellants are entitled to get refund of interest appropriated by the adjudicating authority. We agree with the submissions of the learned Authorised Representative to the extent that the appellant had not claimed payment of interest on the amount appropriated, before the lower authorities. - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Undervaluation of goods, demand of duty, imposition of penalty, interest appropriation, refund of interest, revenue neutrality, entitlement to interest on illegal appropriation.

Analysis:
The case involved the appellants engaged in manufacturing Organic Chemicals under Chapter 29 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The department alleged undervaluation of goods, leading to the initiation of proceedings resulting in the confirmation of duty demand and penalty imposition. The Tribunal upheld the duty demand and modified the penalty amount in a previous order. The current matter revolved around the adjudicating authority's appropriation of interest on the duty demand against a rebate of refund order, which was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner rejected the appeals, prompting the appellants to file the current appeals.

The appellants' Advocate argued that a subsequent Tribunal order rectified an earlier decision, stating that interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944, for clearances made before a specific date could not be demanded, citing revenue neutrality. The Advocate contended that this entitled the appellants to a refund of the interest amount appropriated by the impugned order. Additionally, the Advocate claimed that the appellants should receive interest on the illegal appropriation of interest by orders from 2005.

On the Revenue's side, it was argued that the appellants did not demand interest on interest before the lower authorities and that there was no provision for refunding interest on interest, making the appellants ineligible to claim such interest.

After considering the arguments and reviewing the records, the Tribunal found that the adjudicating authority had sanctioned rebate claims and appropriated the amount towards outstanding interest. Referring to a previous decision in the appellants' case, the Tribunal agreed that the appellants were entitled to a refund of the appropriated interest. However, the Tribunal concurred with the Revenue that the appellants had not claimed interest on the appropriated amount before the lower authorities.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeals with consequential relief, ruling in favor of the appellants.