2017 (6) TMI 997 - AT - Central Excise

Adjustment of pre-deposit - Valuation - Railway siding and shunting charges - includibility - Held that - The Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CCE Bangalore Vs Stella Rubber Works (Unit-II) 2013 (3) TMI 299 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT has held that Section 11 of the CEA does not contemplate adjustment of monies due to the assessee towards the amount due to the Revenue - Since Section 11 of the Central excise Act does not grant any powers of such adjustment the same cannot be allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
Adjustment of refund of predeposit with pending recovery dues

Analysis:
Issue 1: Adjustment of refund with pending recovery dues
The case involved the appellant who had paid predeposit amounts for various issues, including non-inclusion of certain charges in the assessable value. After a series of legal proceedings, refund claims were filed by the appellant. However, the department adjusted the refund amounts towards pending recovery dues alleged to be due from the appellant. The appellant contended that such adjustment was illegal as the payments had not attained finality. The appellant relied on various circulars and argued that predeposit should not be adjusted towards other dues. On the other hand, the department justified the adjustment by stating that as per the Central Excise Act, recovery of sums due to the government can be made by deducting the amount from any money owing to the person. The department argued that since the amounts were payable by the appellant as per adjudication orders, the adjustment was correct.

Issue 2: Legal arguments and authorities cited
During the proceedings, the appellant's counsel cited judgments where it was held that refund of predeposit cannot be adjusted towards pending arrears. The circulars referred to by the appellant supported this position. Additionally, the High Court of Karnataka in a specific case held that Section 11 of the Central Excise Act does not allow adjustment of monies due to the assessee towards the amount due to the Revenue. The appellant's reliance on these judgments and authorities strengthened their argument against the adjustment of predeposit.

Issue 3: Tribunal's decision and reasoning
After considering the submissions from both sides and examining the details of the predeposit and adjustments made, the Tribunal concluded that the adjustment of predeposit was unjustified. The Tribunal emphasized that Section 11 of the Central Excise Act does not provide for such adjustments and that the department could initiate recovery proceedings if the demands had attained finality. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief as per the law.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision highlighted the legal principles governing the adjustment of predeposit with pending recovery dues and emphasized the need for adherence to statutory provisions while dealing with such matters.