2017 (4) TMI 148 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - denial on various grounds like the refund claim is barred by limitation refund claim is filed without challenging the APC Order of the Commissioner the appellant could not establish that the incidence of duty claimed as refund had not been passed on to their buyers etc. - Held that - the refund claim was filed consequent to the order of the Ld Commissioner (Appeals) dt 20.1.2005 setting the demands for the earlier period observing that the APC determined as 971.40 MTs by applying Rule 3 of the Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules 1997 is correct and not 2595 MTs as per Rule 5 of the said Rules arrived at by the Commissioner of Central Excise - the matter may be remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to re-examine the all issues afresh in the light of the principles of law laid down on each aspect - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
- Discrepancy in the determination of Annual Production Capacity (APC)
- Rejection of refund claim by the Adjudicating Authority
- Applicability of earlier orders on subsequent periods

Analysis:
1. Discrepancy in the determination of Annual Production Capacity (APC): The appellant, a manufacturer of re-rolled products of non-alloy steel, was discharging duty under the Compounded Levy Scheme. The Commissioner of Central Excise had initially fixed their Annual Production Capacity at 2595 MTs for the Financial Year 1998-99. However, the appellant started paying lesser duty from April 1998 based on a different parameter, determining the APC as 971.40 MTs. This led to a show cause notice for recovery of short-paid duty, which was confirmed with interest. The Ld Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of the adjudicating authority, allowing the appeal. Subsequently, a refund claim was filed by the appellant, which was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority on various grounds. The issue revolved around the correct determination of APC and the basis for calculating the duty amount.

2. Rejection of refund claim by the Adjudicating Authority: The appellant's refund claim under Sec 11B of CEA, 1944 was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority on grounds of limitation, failure to challenge the APC Order, and inability to prove that the duty incidence had not been passed on to buyers. The appellant contended that the rejection was unjustified, citing errors in the Ld Commissioner (Appeals) order and the Chartered Accountant's certificate provided as evidence. The dispute highlighted the procedural and evidentiary requirements for a valid refund claim under the relevant provisions of the law.

3. Applicability of earlier orders on subsequent periods: The Ld AR for the Revenue argued that the order of the Ld Commissioner (Appeals) for an earlier period could not be applied to subsequent periods. Referring to judgments by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Revenue contended that the appellant was not eligible for the refund claim based on the previous order. The issue raised questions about the temporal application of legal decisions and their impact on subsequent claims and appeals.

In the final judgment, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh examination of all issues, considering the principles of law laid down in relevant judgments. Both parties agreed to re-examine the discrepancies in the determination of APC and other related aspects, ensuring a reasonable opportunity of hearing for the appellant. The decision allowed for a comprehensive review of the case, keeping all issues open for further consideration.