2017 (12) TMI 1588 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that - The appellant has confused the entire order of the Tribunal inasmuch as the Tribunal vide final order dated 19/09/2014 specifically stated that the demands within five years of issuance of show cause notice is liable to be confirmed and are confirmed - There is no mention in the Tribunal s order as to consequential relief would follow. In the absence of any such direction, the refund claim filed by the appellant seems to be erroneous - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues: Refund claim under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI, the appeal was directed against an Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai Zone - II. Despite the absence of the appellant, the appeal was taken up due to the narrow compass of the issue involved. The appellant had filed a refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, amounting to Rs. 7,86,018, stating that the amount was paid to the department as per directions. The appellant argued that the refund was a consequential relief not covered in previous show cause notices. However, the Tribunal's final order dated 19/09/2014 confirmed demands within five years of the show cause notice, without mentioning any consequential relief. The Tribunal found the appellant's refund claim erroneous and upheld the lower authorities' findings, leading to the rejection of the appeal.

This judgment primarily revolves around the appellant's refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant sought a refund of Rs. 7,86,018, claiming it was paid to the department as per directions. The appellant contended that this refund was a consequential relief not included in previous show cause notices. However, the Tribunal's final order dated 19/09/2014 confirmed demands within five years of the show cause notice without mentioning any consequential relief. The Tribunal found the appellant's interpretation erroneous and upheld the lower authorities' decisions. The Tribunal emphasized that the refund claim was not supported by the Tribunal's order and was inconsistent with the law. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, affirming the impugned order.