2016 (1) TMI 882 - AT - Central Excise

Adjustment of amounts of refund due to the respondent against confirmed dues of penalty - FAA deleted the adjustment - Held that - Section 11 of the Central Excise Act does not provide for adjustment of money due towards the amount due to Revenue. - The first appellate authority has justifiably held that the adjudicating authority could not have adjusted the amount of ₹ 10 lakhs towards the penalty imposed on the respondent by Order-in-Original dated 2.11.2005. Also see COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BANGALORE-III Versus STELLA RUBBER WORKS (UNIT-II) 2013 (3) TMI 299 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT - DEcided against revenue

Summary

Issues involved: Adjustment of amounts due to the respondent against confirmed dues.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against an Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-I, regarding the adjustment of amounts due to the respondent against confirmed dues.

2. The respondent was visited by authorities and found to have short payment of duty. They deposited Rs. 10 lakhs before the show-cause notice was issued. The adjudicating authority sanctioned the refund of this amount but adjusted it against an outstanding penalty imposed on the respondent. The first appellate authority set aside this order, leading to the Revenue filing the present appeal before the Tribunal.

3. The learned AR argued that Section 11 of the Central Excise Act empowers the Department to adjust refund amounts against government dues. He cited relevant case laws to support this argument.

4. The respondent's counsel contended that a High Court judgment favored the assessee in a similar case, emphasizing that Section 11 does not allow for the adjustment of money due towards the amount owed to Revenue.

5. The Tribunal found that the first appellate authority rightly held that the adjudicating authority could not adjust the Rs. 10 lakhs towards the penalty imposed on the respondent. The appellate authority's findings were in line with the law laid down by the High Court, emphasizing that the appropriation was not in order, and the amount should have been sanctioned in cash.

6. Referring to the legal provisions and judgments, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was correct and legal. It highlighted that the High Court's judgment needed to be followed over the Tribunal's orders passed before the High Court's decision. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, considering the factual matrix and judicial pronouncements.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the legal arguments, case history, and the Tribunal's rationale in deciding the appeal related to the adjustment of amounts due to the respondent against confirmed dues.