2017 (5) TMI 1288 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - Held that - the amount which was deposited on 20/01/2009 was not deposited in compliance to any confirmed demand. The same was deposited on insistence of the Department, and that even today that amount has not been confirmed through any process of adjudication. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for refund of the same along with interest as per the provisions of law - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on pending Show Cause Notice, Compliance of confirmed demand for deposited amount, Entitlement for refund without confirmed demand.

Analysis:
- The appellant, M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 36-CE/APPL/NOIDA/2011 dated 24/02/2011, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Noida. The appellant had deposited an amount of ?20,33,747/- through TR-6 Challan on 20/01/2009 towards Education Cess, and later filed a refund application for the same amount on 17/04/2009.
- The Original Authority rejected the refund claim citing a Show Cause Notice issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida, demanding ?59,08,917/-, which included the deposited amount. The application was rejected pending adjudication of the Show Cause Notice. The Commissioner (Appeals) also declined to interfere, leading to the appellant's appeal before the Tribunal.
- During the hearing, the Revenue was asked to provide an update on the adjudication of the Show Cause Notice dated 02/02/2010. The appellant argued that the deposited amount was not in compliance with any confirmed demand and had become a duty deposit. As the Show Cause Notice was yet to be adjudicated, the amount remained without legal authority with the exchequer.
- The Tribunal considered the contentions and noted that the deposited amount was not in compliance with any confirmed demand but was made on the Department's insistence. As the amount had not been confirmed through adjudication, the Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to a refund with interest as per the law. The appeal was allowed, directing the Original Authority to grant the refund within 90 days of receiving the order, providing the appellant with consequential relief.

This judgment highlights the importance of confirming demands before depositing amounts, the entitlement for a refund in the absence of confirmed demands, and the legal authority required for appropriations by the exchequer.