2019 (8) TMI 1716 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim of the pre-deposit paid in excess - excess pre-deposit was made by mistake - HELD THAT - Admittedly, the appellant is not claiming refund of any part of the amount it paid during the investigation which is shown to have been appropriated, but is only claiming refund of the excess pre-deposit made by mistake while filing its first appeal; it would have been different if no such amounts were paid during investigation. The purpose of pre-deposit has been satisfactorily met by the appellant and hence, in view of the specific facts of the case, the appellant should get back the excess pre-deposit made by mistake - When the legislature makes it clear what is to be collected as pre- deposit, in the absence of any finding with regard to the non-satisfaction of such conditions as to the pre-deposit, the Revenue cannot retain such excess amount remitted by mistake. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Refund claim of excess pre-deposit paid by mistake before the Adjudicating Authority.
- Eligibility of the appellant for the refund of the mistakenly paid pre-deposit while filing the first appeal.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged the rejection of its refund claim of the excess pre-deposit paid by mistake before the Adjudicating Authority. The appellant contended that it had mistakenly made an excess pre-deposit while filing the first appeal and sought a refund of the wrongly paid amount. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the refund claim, leading to an appeal by the appellant. The main contention revolved around the eligibility of the appellant for the refund of the excess pre-deposit amount. The appellant specifically sought a refund of the additional pre-deposit made by mistake, not the entire amount deposited. The appellant argued that the payment made during the investigation should be considered as pre-deposit, as per the relevant Circular. On the other hand, the Revenue argued that the appellant was not entitled to a refund as the first appeal had been decided against them, citing guidelines from Circular No. 984/8/2014-CX.

The Tribunal analyzed the contentions of both parties and the relevant Circular instructions. The key issue was whether the appellant was entitled to a refund of the mistakenly paid pre-deposit. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not dispute the payment made during the investigation, which was appropriated by the Adjudicating Authority. It was observed that the appellant had met the purpose of pre-deposit, and the liability remained at paying either 7.5% or 10%, as per the Circular. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant could claim a refund of any amount paid in excess of the required pre-deposit percentage. Since the appellant was only seeking a refund of the excess pre-deposit made by mistake, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant should receive back the mistakenly paid amount. The Tribunal held that in the absence of any finding regarding non-satisfaction of pre-deposit conditions, the Revenue could not retain the excess amount remitted by mistake. Consequently, the impugned order rejecting the refund claim was set aside, and the Revenue was directed to refund the excess pre-deposit as claimed by the appellant. The appeal was allowed with consequential benefits, if any, as per the law.