2016 (12) TMI 1170 - AT - Central Excise

Rejection of refund claim - rejection on the ground that Appellant has not filed the refund claim in the prescribed form - Held that - It is observed from case records that Adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original dated 14.02.2007, while rejecting the refund claim, did not deliberate on this issue and no Appeal was filed by Revenue against Order-in-Original dated 14.02.2007. Revenue cannot be allowed to raise this point at this stage when the same was not an issue decided by the Adjudicating authority against which no appeal was filed by department - It is further observed that Adjudicating authority under Order-in-Original dated 28-31/12/1998, while allowing the deductions, finalized the price lists/price declarations by an appealable order. The same was not contested by the department and has become final. The refund is thus due to the Respondent, however, subject to the method of quantification adopted by the Respondent while claiming the refund amount. Onus of establishing the correct refund amount lies on the applicant (Respondent). The matter has been remanded to the Adjudicating authority for quantification of refund admissible. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Change in name of the Respondent company.
2. Rejection of refund claim by the Adjudicating authority.
3. Dispute regarding deductions and assessable value.
4. Failure to file refund claim in prescribed form.
5. Quantification of refund amount.
6. Appeal by Revenue against the refund claim.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Change in name of the Respondent company
The Respondent filed an application for changing the name of the company from M/s.ICI (I) Ltd. to M/s.PMC Rubber Chemicals India Private Ltd. The application was supported by a copy of Central Excise Registration issued in the new name. The Tribunal allowed the application for the change in name.

Issue 2: Rejection of refund claim by the Adjudicating authority
The Adjudicating authority rejected a refund claim of &8377; 24,27,955/- citing lack of factual data to substantiate the claim. The first appellate authority upheld the refund on merits but directed the Adjudicating authority to quantify the refund. The Revenue argued that the refund claim was not filed in the prescribed form, leading to outright rejection. However, the Tribunal noted that the Adjudicating authority did not deliberate on this issue, and since no appeal was filed against the rejection, the Revenue could not raise it at this stage.

Issue 3: Dispute regarding deductions and assessable value
The Respondent claimed deductions to arrive at the assessable value for duty paid provisionally between 1983 and 1998. The Adjudicating authority had allowed deductions for various items and approved price lists. The Revenue contended that the refund claim was not filed in the prescribed form, but the Tribunal observed that this issue was not raised earlier and had become final. The matter was remanded for quantification of the refund amount.

Issue 4: Failure to file refund claim in prescribed form
The Adjudicating authority had allowed deductions and finalized price lists in an appealable order, which was not contested by the Revenue and had become final. The Tribunal emphasized that the onus of establishing the correct refund amount lay with the Respondent, who needed to provide documentary evidence to support the claim.

Issue 5: Quantification of refund amount
The first appellate authority had remanded the matter for quantification of the refund admissible. The Tribunal noted that the Respondent had to demonstrate the exact refund amount with supporting evidence before the Adjudicating authority.

Issue 6: Appeal by Revenue against the refund claim
The Tribunal allowed the appeal by the Revenue, remanding the matter to the Adjudicating authority for quantification of the refund amount after providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the Respondent. The Miscellaneous Application filed by the Respondent was also disposed of.