2017 (8) TMI 998 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - Valuation - includibility - value of tin metal containers, used for packing - whether the appellant s refund claims which were the subject matter of the first round of litigation right upto the Hon ble Supreme Court are required to be sanctioned or the lower authorities were right in rejecting the same on the ground of non-submission of documents? - principle of res-judicata - Held that - The appellant having succeeded right upto the Supreme Court, a subsequent issuance of SCN, for the second time, in respect of the same refund claims cannot be appreciated. The adjudication cannot be done in piece meal and the appellant having succeeded in the first round of litigation, the Department cannot raise, subsequently, another objection for rejection of the refund claims. The appellants have rightly contended that in such cases the principles of res judicata will apply - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund of excise duty on tin containers, rejection of refund claim by lower authorities, application of res judicata principle.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in biscuit manufacturing, filed refund claims for excise duty paid on tin containers. The Assistant Collector granted a partial refund based on return of containers, rejecting the balance. The Commissioner (Appeals) directed refund if returnability was not in dispute. The Revenue's appeal to Tribunal was dismissed due to lack of specific authorization. Subsequent appeals to higher courts were also dismissed.

2. Despite previous orders, the appellant faced challenges in obtaining the refund. The Department requested documents, issued show cause notices (SCN), and rejected the refund claim citing inadequate evidence. The appellant submitted TR-6 challans, but the Dy. Commissioner rejected the claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.

3. The appellant appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) who rejected the claim for lack of specified evidence but favored unjust enrichment considerations. The main issue was whether the refund claims, previously litigated up to the Supreme Court, should be sanctioned or rejected for non-document submission. The Tribunal found that the earlier orders confirmed the duty payment on tin containers, and subsequent objections by the Revenue were unwarranted. The application of res judicata was highlighted, emphasizing the finality of previous adjudication.

4. Considering the entire case history and developments, the Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' rejection, allowing the appeal and granting consequential relief to the appellants. The judgment emphasized the principle of res judicata and directed the Revenue to implement the order promptly due to the case's age.