2018 (4) TMI 1825 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of Differential Amount - appellant s claim is that the annual differential refund should be calculated taking all goods together irrespective of their value addition percentage - HELD THAT - The Commissioner (Appeals) had given detailed reasons with the table of calculation in his order which was not refuted by the appellant - there are no reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund of duty under Area Based Exemption Notification for Iron & Steel products; Appeal for refund of differential amount for goods under Chapter 26; Calculation of differential refund based on value addition percentage.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing Iron & Steel products and Zinc Ash Dross, availed Area Based Exemption Notification for duty refund. The Adjudicating authority granted a refund for goods under Chapter 72 and 73 but a differential amount remained for goods under Chapter 26.

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed a partial refund for goods under Chapter 26 based on the appellant's revised claim. The appellant contended that the differential refund should consider all goods together, regardless of their value addition percentage, which was not fully considered by the Adjudicating authority.

3. The Commissioner (Appeals) re-determined the refund for goods under Chapter 26, considering the duty liability, payments made from PLA and CENVAT Credit, and the duty payable on value addition. The Commissioner found discrepancies in the initial determination and sanctioned a lower refund than required.

4. The Commissioner (Appeals) provided a detailed calculation table in the order, which was not challenged by the appellant. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, stating that the reasons provided were valid and rejecting the appellant's appeal for further refund.

5. The Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner's order was based on sound reasoning and factual analysis, and hence, upheld the decision, rejecting the appellant's appeal for additional refund. The judgment was pronounced on 03.04.2018 by the Tribunal.