2016 (11) TMI 778 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - Held that - Since the appellant has not contested the demand raised in the show-cause notice dated 4.9.1996, which has attained finality, filing refund claim before the lower authorities stating that the demand in the show-cause notice included wrongly an amount of ₹ 11,12,503/- is an unacceptable proposition by any stretch of imagination - appeal rejected - decided in favor of Revenue.

Summary

Issues involved:
Refund claim rejection based on show-cause notice, eligibility for various deductions, validity of demand raised, interpretation of Article 265 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis:
The appellant filed a refund claim of ?11,12,503 based on discrepancies in the demand raised in a show-cause notice dated 4.9.1996. The appellant argued that certain deductions like value of unbranded goods, exports, CT-3 clearance, and unclaimed MODVAT credit were not considered in the demand. The adjudicating authority and the first appellate authority rejected the refund claim. The appellant contended that as per Article 265 of the Constitution of India, no tax should be levied or collected without proper authority, and thus, the amount claimed for refund should be granted. The appellant cited various court decisions to support their case.

The appellate tribunal found the appellant's arguments lacking merit for several reasons. Firstly, the show-cause notice from 1996, with a demand of ?24,01,417, had been finalized by the Apex Court. The demand was confirmed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune, and upheld by CEGAT, Mumbai, and the Apex Court. The tribunal noted that the appellant did not contest the demand during previous proceedings. Secondly, the tribunal rejected the appellant's argument that the revenue held amounts they were not required to, as the appellant did not challenge the quantification of the demand earlier. Lastly, the tribunal deemed the appellant's refund claim unacceptable since they did not contest the demand raised in the show-cause notice, which had already attained finality.

In conclusion, the tribunal upheld the impugned order, stating it was correct, legal, and free from any defects. The appeal for the refund claim was rejected based on the findings that the demand raised in the show-cause notice had been finalized through judicial processes, and the appellant's contentions were deemed unacceptable.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key arguments presented by the appellant, the tribunal's reasoning for rejecting the refund claim, and the legal principles applied in reaching the decision.