2023 (2) TMI 1217 - AT - Central Excise

Rebate claim of short sanctioned amount - rejection of claim only on the ground that the Maritime Commissioner in his sanctioned order has not given a liberty by giving a remark in his sanctioned order - HELD THAT - It is surprising that that Learned Assistant Commissioner has taken that remark as the order for giving re-credit to the appellant. The remark is only suggestion to the appellant to approach the Assistant Commissioner and the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner was appropriate authority to decide independently the re-credit of short sanctioned amount. Therefore there is no reason to deny re-credit. As regard the amount of Rs. 17, 05, 822/- the Commissioner (Appeals) has made a blunder that the said amount was already allowed as re-credit by the Assistant Commissioner and no appeal was filed by the Revenue challenging the order of the Assistant Commissioner therefore the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has no jurisdiction to decide the re-credit allowed by the Adjudicating Authority - to this extent also the impugned order is liable to set aside. The impugned order is set aside - Appeal is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rebate claim filed by the appellant for exports of goods.
2. Sanctioning of rebate claim by the Maritime Commissioner.
3. Re-credit of short sanctioned amount by the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner.
4. Appeal filed by the appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals).
5. Decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding re-credit.
6. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner (Appeals) in deciding re-credit.
7. Finding of the Adjudicating Authority on re-credit.
8. Remarks by the Maritime Commissioner in the sanctioned order.
9. Authority to independently decide re-credit.

Analysis:
The appellant filed a rebate claim for goods exports, with the Maritime Commissioner sanctioning part of the claim and allowing the appellant to seek re-credit for the remaining amount in some cases. However, in certain cases, no such liberty was granted. The Adjudicating Authority permitted re-credit only where liberty was given, leading to the appellant's appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected re-credit not only where the Maritime Commissioner did not grant liberty but also where it was allowed by the Adjudicating Authority, prompting the present appeal.

The appellant's counsel argued that since no appeal was filed by the Revenue, the Commissioner (Appeals) lacked jurisdiction to decide on the sanctioned re-credit amount by the Assistant Commissioner. The counsel contended that the Adjudicating Authority could independently decide on re-credit, regardless of liberty remarks by the Maritime Commissioner.

The Revenue's Assistant Commissioner supported the impugned order's findings, leading to a detailed analysis by the Member (Judicial). The Member noted that the Adjudicating Authority agreed on the need for re-credit if any amount was short sanctioned, rejecting claims solely based on the absence of liberty remarks in the Maritime Commissioner's order. The Member clarified that the Maritime Commissioner's remark was a suggestion, and the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner held the authority to independently decide on re-credit, emphasizing no grounds for denial.

Regarding a specific amount, the Member criticized the Commissioner (Appeals) for overturning re-credit allowed by the Assistant Commissioner without Revenue's appeal challenge, thus lacking jurisdiction. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, emphasizing the independence of the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner in deciding re-credit amounts.