2017 (8) TMI 545 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - disputing the merits of the case which stands concluded - Section 11A(2B) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that - irrespective whether the appellant is entitled for CENVAT credit or otherwise since they have opted for immunity under 11A(2B), they cannot dispute the merit of the case by filing refund claim. After payment of duty along with interest by the assessee and filing an intimation claiming settlement of case under 11A(2B). The department has no power to issue SCN and the issue involved stands concluded with the appellants filing of declaration under 11A(2B), therefore the appellants cannot come with a refund claim again disputing the merit of the case which stands concluded - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Availing cenvat credit on capital goods and subsequent return after use to job worker.
2. Department's objection on duty payment based on depreciated value.
3. Reversal of cenvat credit, interest payment, and immunity under Section 11A(2B) claimed.
4. Rejection of refund claim by original authority.
5. Appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) challenging rejection of refund claim.
6. Dispute related to admissibility of cenvat credit and conclusion under Section 11A(2B).
7. Entitlement to cenvat credit after opting for immunity under Section 11A(2B).
8. Interpretation of Section 11A(2B) and its implications on show-cause notices and refund claims.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appellant availed cenvat credit on capital goods initially, which were later removed to a job worker on payment of duty. The job worker then returned the capital goods after use, paying duty equivalent to the cenvat credit availed. The department objected, stating duty should have been paid on the depreciated value. The appellant reversed the cenvat credit, paid interest, and claimed immunity under Section 11A(2B) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

2. The original authority rejected the refund claim of the appellant, citing their choice to opt for the provision under Section 11A(2B), which concludes the dispute on payment of duty and interest. The appellant then appealed before the Commissioner (Appeals) challenging this rejection.

3. The issue revolved around the admissibility of cenvat credit and the impact of opting for immunity under Section 11A(2B). The appellant's refund claim was denied as the declaration under Section 11A(2B) settled the dispute, preventing the department from issuing further show-cause notices.

4. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, stating that once the appellant chose immunity under Section 11A(2B) and filed a declaration, they could not dispute the case's merit through a refund claim. Section 11A(2B) prohibits the department from issuing show-cause notices after payment of duty and interest, concluding the matter.

5. The Tribunal's decision affirmed that the appellant's refund claim post opting for immunity under Section 11A(2B) was not maintainable, as the case was settled by the declaration. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the impugned order was upheld.