2016 (12) TMI 722 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - on finalisation of provisional assessment certain excess were found which was claimed by the respondent has received and the adjudicating authority sanctioned the refund claim to adjust the said amount against the same of outstanding demand against the respondent and some part of the refund claim was credited in their account - Held that - I find that although the adjudicating authority sanctioned the refund claim but the same was adjusted the amount outstanding demand against the respondent. The outstanding demand was challenged before this Tribunal and this Tribunal vide order no. 788-94/2006 dated 26.09.2006 has already dealt the issue and decide the issue in favour of the respondent and the said demand have been dropped. Therefore, on that part, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order - Further, I find that the respondent is paying duty first utilising cenvat credit account and balance amount of duty has been paid through PLA. In that circumstances, the Ld. Commissioner (A) has rightly allow refund claim in cash, therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order on this account also - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue-appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against refund claim allowed to respondent
- Adjustment of refund against outstanding demand
- Payment of duty through cenvat credit account and PLA
- Tribunal's decision in favor of respondent on outstanding demand

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal by the Revenue against the allowance of a refund claim to the respondent. The respondent had claimed excess amounts from a provisional assessment, which were sanctioned by the adjudicating authority to be adjusted against outstanding demands. However, the respondent challenged the outstanding demand, which was settled by the tribunal in a previous order. The tribunal held that since the demand had been dropped, the amount could not be charged against the refund claim. Additionally, the respondent paid duty by utilizing the cenvat credit account and the remaining amount through PLA. Consequently, the Ld. Commissioner (A) rightly allowed the refund claim in cash. The tribunal found no infirmity in the impugned order regarding the adjustment against the outstanding demand or the cash refund, upholding the decision in favor of the respondent. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

In conclusion, the judgment highlights the importance of considering previous tribunal decisions, the method of duty payment, and the proper handling of refund claims against outstanding demands. The tribunal's decision in favor of the respondent was based on the settlement of the outstanding demand and the correct payment procedure followed by the respondent. The ruling emphasizes the need for thorough examination of all relevant aspects before making a decision on refund claims and outstanding demands to ensure fairness and compliance with legal requirements.