2016 (12) TMI 204 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - interest of ₹ 2,80,257/- having been earlier charged and appropriated against a demand was not required to be so charged and adjustable - whether the appellant was entitled to refund? - Held that - It is strange to notice that learned Commissioner (Appeals), who granted refund on proper adjudication of the matter by his order dated 21.05.2012, without that order being appealed by the department, was reviewed by him for the purpose of ordering recovery of the refund in terms of the order dated 18.06.2013. It does not appeal to common sense as to how the same authority who passed an order shall change his mind in a subsequent proceeding to review his previous order and reverse the same contrary to the judicial discipline and to the detriment rule of consistency. In absence of appeal by Revenue, the order dated 21.05.2012, reached to finality - there is no necessity to dilate the matter further, for which, the appeal is allowed, setting aside the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals).

Summary

Issues:
1. Right to refund arising from Order-in-Appeal No. 26/2012-CEX
2. Recovery of refunded amount in terms of Order No.41/2013
3. Review of the refund order by the Commissioner (Appeals)
4. Denial of refund by Order-in-Original No.02/2014
5. Multiplicity of litigation by Revenue

Analysis:
1. The judgment concerns the right to refund that arose from Order-in-Appeal No. 26/2012-CEX, where the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the appellant was entitled to a refund of interest amounting to ?2,80,257. The refund was paid to the appellant on 07.09.2012 but was later sought to be recovered through Order No.41/2013 issued on 18.06.2013. The Tribunal noted the inconsistency in the Commissioner's actions, as the same authority who granted the refund later reviewed his decision to order recovery, despite no appeal by the Revenue. The Tribunal found this reversal to be against judicial discipline and consistency, leading to the appeal being allowed, setting aside the Commissioner's order.

2. In a related appeal, E/41997/2013, the appellant challenged the denial of refund by the department in response to a show-cause notice dated 12.07.2013. The denial was formalized in Order-in-Original No.02/2014 dated 30.01.2014, which was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) upon the appellant's approach. The Tribunal observed a common cause of action with the previous appeal, E/41934/2013, and noted the multiplicity of litigation by the Revenue. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed this appeal as well, in line with the decision in the earlier case, to avoid unnecessary legal proceedings and maintain consistency in judgments.

3. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of upholding judicial discipline and the finality of orders, especially when no appeal is lodged by the Revenue against a favorable decision for the appellant. The judgment highlights the need for consistency in legal proceedings and the adverse implications of arbitrary reversals by authorities. By setting aside the orders that deviated from established principles, the Tribunal aimed to ensure fairness and adherence to legal norms in matters of refund claims and recovery actions initiated by the tax department.