2007 (7) TMI 143 - AT - Central Excise

Refund Purchase of goods in auction from GOI Mint Report obtained from Mint clarify that if seller(Mint) have no any dispute with excise authority for refund, the appellant (buyer) does not entitled for any refund Refund does not arise so appeal dismissed

Summary

Issues:
- Claim for refund of excess duty paid on impugned goods purchased in auction from Government of India Mint
- Proper classification of goods by Government Mint and confrontation of report to the buyer
- Adjudication procedure followed by the Original Authority and lower Appellate Authority
- Entitlement of buyer for refund when seller has not claimed any refund or disputed excise duty

Analysis:

1. The appellants, a trading company, purchased impugned goods in auction from the Government of India Mint. The Mint collected excise duty on the goods, paid it to the Department, and did not dispute the excisability of the goods. The buyers claimed a refund of excess duty, contending that the goods were not excisable. The claim was rejected by the Original Authority and the lower Appellate Authority.

2. The buyers argued that the Mint did not disclose whether the goods were properly classified and did not confront the report obtained from the Mint. They claimed that the actions of the Adjudicating Authority tainted the decisions of the lower authorities.

3. The Revenue submitted that the First Appellate Authority had appropriately handled the case, as evidenced by the show-cause notice and the knowledge imparted to the buyers regarding the Mint's report. The Revenue contended that since the buyers were aware of the report during the show-cause stage, the plea for confrontation of the report was immaterial, and the decision to reject the refund claim was justified.

4. After hearing both sides and examining the record, the Tribunal found the Revenue's submission well-founded. The Tribunal noted that the buyers were not prejudiced by the lack of confrontation of the report, as demonstrated by the handling of the matter by the Appellate Authority. Since the seller did not seek a refund or dispute the excise duty, the buyers were not entitled to a refund, leading the Tribunal to dismiss the appeal.

5. The Tribunal pronounced its decision on 26-7-07, upholding the rejection of the refund claim by the lower authorities based on the lack of entitlement for a refund when the seller had not raised any refund issues or disputes with the excise authorities.