2008 (1) TMI 49 - AT - Central Excise

Appellant filed an appeal against the order of Asst. Commissioner subsequently after the decision of SC through which allowed the credit on HSD oil to that date Held that the refund claim can t be filed for the second time when the earlier order has become final

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Rejection of refund claim for modvat credit on HSD oil used for generating electricity.
2. Applicability of Supreme Court decision on eligibility of credit on HSD oil.
3. Appeal against the earlier order rejecting the refund claim.

Analysis:
1. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing glass envelopes, sought a refund claim of Rs.12,73,571 for HSD oil used for electricity generation, which was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner. The issue revolved around the modvat credit availed on HSD oil and its eligibility for refund.

2. Subsequent to a Supreme Court decision in the case of CCE Hyderabad Vs. Associate Cement Companies Ltd., it was established that credit on HSD oil was admissible until 1.3.98. The appellant then filed a fresh refund claim, which was rejected by the authorities citing the finality of the earlier order and the lack of appeal against it. The Commissioner (Appeals) emphasized that failure to appeal against an adjudicating authority's order precludes questioning its correctness later through a refund claim, as it undermines the statutory appeal process.

3. The crucial point of contention was the failure to appeal the initial order disallowing the refund claim. The absence of an appeal against the Assistant Commissioner's decision led to the rejection of the subsequent refund claim. The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the appeal process and not circumventing final orders through repeated refund claims.

This judgment highlights the significance of following due process in challenging decisions, particularly in matters concerning refund claims and statutory appeal mechanisms. The adherence to established legal procedures and the principle of finality of orders were pivotal in determining the outcome of the case.