2008 (3) TMI 231 - AT - Central Excise

SC rejected refund claim of appellants subsequently SC in another case took contrary view and allowed the refund - appellants have filed the impugned refund claim following the decision in that case where appellants was not a party held that the appellants cannot claim refund on the basis of the decision rendered in the case of another assessee matter in appellants has attained finality - refund can t be granted unless the final order of the SC in the appellant s own case is modified

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim based on a different Supreme Court decision.
2. Finality of Supreme Court decision.
3. Authority to grant refund.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a refund claim by the appellants based on a Supreme Court decision in the case of another assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court initially held the impugned goods chargeable to higher rates of duty, leading to the appellants paying differential duty. Subsequently, in another case, the Supreme Court took a different view and held the impugned goods chargeable to a lower rate of duty. The appellants filed a refund claim following this decision. However, the authorities rejected the claim, citing the Constitution Bench's decision that a refund cannot be claimed based on another assessee's case.

2. The Tribunal noted that the case of the appellants had already been decided against them by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, leading to the finality of the matter and payment of additional duty by the appellants. Even though a different decision was rendered in the case of Goodyear by the Supreme Court, the appellants were not a party to that case. Therefore, the authorities below could not allow a refund based on the decision in Goodyear, as the case had already reached finality at the Supreme Court level in the appellants' case. The Tribunal emphasized that unless the final order of the Supreme Court in the appellant's own case is modified, the appeal for a refund cannot be granted.

3. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants, stating that the authorities below cannot take a different decision and grant a refund of the amount paid in pursuance of the Supreme Court's order. The citation of the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. was deemed appropriate, as the appellants were not a party in the case of Goodyear India Ltd. The Tribunal concluded that unless the final order of the Supreme Court in the appellant's own case is modified, the appeal cannot be allowed, and no refund can be granted. The C.O. filed by the Department was also disposed of accordingly.