2015 (10) TMI 1365 - AT - Central Excise

Recovery of erroneous refund - excise duty paid on scented suprari - Held that - Present appeal is an offshoot of refund claim which was originally rejected by the adjudicating authority in his order dt. 30.5.2001 on limitation which is upheld by Tribunal in Final order 2005 (7) TMI 428 - CESTAT, CHENNAI and Hon ble High Court 2014 (9) TMI 478 - Madras High Court . By respectfully following the order of Hon ble High Court (supra), I hold that the demand of recovery of erroneous refund with interest is upheld. Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection on excise duty payment grounds; Appeal against rejection; Sanction of refund by adjudicating authority; Protective show cause issued; Tribunal's order setting aside refund sanction; Demand of recovery of erroneously sanctioned amount; Upholding of demand by Commissioner (Appeals); High Court's dismissal of appellant's claim; Appellant's failure to appear for appeal hearing.

Analysis:
The appellant filed an appeal against the rejection of a refund claim on excise duty paid on scented suprari. The claim was initially rejected by the Asst. Commissioner on grounds of limitation. The Commissioner (Appeals) later allowed the appeal, setting aside the rejection order. However, the Revenue appealed against this decision. During the appeal process, the adjudicating authority sanctioned the refund but subsequently issued a protective show cause notice demanding the recovery of the erroneously sanctioned amount. The Tribunal set aside the earlier order and allowed the Revenue's appeal, leading to the confirmation of the recovery demand by the adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals).

The appellant, however, filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (CMA) before the High Court and obtained an interim stay against the Tribunal's order. The High Court ultimately dismissed the CMA, upholding the Tribunal's decision. Despite multiple hearing listings, the appellant failed to appear, indicating a lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. The Tribunal noted that the High Court's dismissal of the CMA meant the demand for recovery of the refund was valid, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

The High Court's order emphasized the importance of timely refund claims under Section 11-B of the Central Excise Act, highlighting that the appellant did not meet the criteria for an exception to the limitation period. The relevant date for the refund claim was determined based on the date of purchase of goods, which did not favor the appellant's case. As a result, the Tribunal and the High Court found no grounds to interfere with the limitation-based rejection of the refund claim.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the demand for recovery of the erroneously sanctioned refund with interest based on the High Court's decision, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The impugned order was upheld, and the appeal was ultimately dismissed due to the lack of prosecution by the appellant.