2015 (10) TMI 1352 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of benefit of concessional rate of duty - Notification No. 75/84-CE dtd 1.3.1984 - Commissioner allowed refund claim - meanwhile, a show cause notice was issued proposing to recover the erroneous refund, paid to the respondent - Adjudicating authority dropped the proceeding, as the matter was decided by the Tribunal - Held that - Tribunal order has not yet been set aside by the appellate court till date. So, we do no find any reason to interfere the order of the Commissioner. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against dropping of proceedings initiated by show cause notice.
2. Eligibility of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 75/84-CE.
3. Rejection of refund claim by Adjudicating Authority.
4. Acceptance of Tribunal's decision by the Department.
5. Dismissal of Revenue's appeal by the High Court.
6. Pending appeal by Revenue.
7. Tribunal order not set aside by appellate court.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the dropping of proceedings initiated by a show cause notice by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Surat-I. The Tribunal noted that the respondents were involved in the manufacture of Urea and had received Natural Gas Liquefied (NGL) at a concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 75/84-CE. There was a dispute regarding the eligibility of the concessional rate of duty, which was decided in favor of the respondent by the Tribunal.

2. The Adjudicating Authority had initially rejected the refund claims made by the respondent. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) later allowed the refund claims and the amount was paid to the respondent. The Revenue then filed an appeal before the Tribunal challenging this decision.

3. The Tribunal's Final Order rejected the Revenue's appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) decision. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued to recover the erroneous refund paid to the respondent. The Adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings based on the Tribunal's decision, leading the Revenue to file the present appeal.

4. The impugned order highlighted that the Department had accepted the Tribunal's final order in favor of the respondent. The Revenue claimed that they had not accepted the Tribunal's decision and had filed an appeal before the High Court. However, the High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to failure in producing necessary clearance from the Committee of Disputes as per the decision of the Supreme Court.

5. The Tribunal noted that the appellate court had not set aside its order to date. Therefore, finding no reason to interfere with the Commissioner's decision, the appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of the appellate court's decision in determining the outcome of the case.

6. The ongoing appeal filed by the Revenue, which was still pending, indicated a continuation of legal proceedings related to the case. The Tribunal's decision was upheld based on the absence of any overturning judgment from the appellate court.

7. In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision to reject the Revenue's appeal was based on the lack of interference warranted in light of the appellate court's position on the matter. The case highlighted the significance of legal procedures and the hierarchy of courts in determining the final outcome of disputes in tax matters.