2017 (11) TMI 1262 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of excess paid duty - closure of machinery - abatement of duty - Held that - machine which was operated during 16.07.2014 to 31.07.2014 for packing pouches of MRP ₹ 2.80 per pouch, for which the duty has been paid on pro-rata basis - the appellant is not entitled to claim refund of the same. The payment of duty for the machine manufacturing/ packing pouches having MRP of ₹ 5.00 each is a separate proceedings and duty has been paid separately for that and for the machine packing pouches having MRP of ₹ 2.80, the duty has been paid separately and separate refund claim has been filed by the appellant. Therefore, two claims of the appellant filed separately cannot be clubbed together in these proceedings, especially in a situation where the first issue has already been settled. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection for duty paid on packing pouches of different MRPs, interpretation of Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines Rules, 2010, rejection of abatement claim, entitlement to claim refund, applicability of precedent on excess duty payment.

Analysis:
The appellant appealed against the rejection of a refund claim amounting to ?22,18,323 by the lower authorities. The appellant, a manufacturer of Chewing Tobacco, paid duty under the Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines Rules, 2010. The appellant manufactured/packed pouches of different MRPs on different machines during specific periods and paid duty accordingly. The appellant filed a refund claim for excess duty paid for pouches of MRP ?5.00, which was rejected earlier and not challenged. Subsequently, a refund claim for proportionate duty paid for pouches of MRP ?2.80 was also rejected, leading to the current appeal.

During the hearing, the appellant argued that they were entitled to claim a refund for the machine operating from 16.07.2014 to 31.07.2014, as duty had been paid on a pro-rata basis for pouches of MRP ?2.80. The appellant cited a precedent to support their claim for refund even if the procedure was not followed. However, the tribunal noted that the facts of the cited case were not directly applicable to the current scenario. The tribunal emphasized that duty payments for pouches of different MRPs were separate proceedings, and the refund claims were filed separately. As the issue of duty payment for pouches of MRP ?5.00 had already been settled, the tribunal concluded that the appellant could not combine both claims in the current proceedings.

Ultimately, the tribunal found no merit in the appellant's appeal and dismissed it. The tribunal's decision was based on the distinct nature of duty payments for pouches of different MRPs and the separate refund claims filed by the appellant. The tribunal clarified that the rejection of the abatement claim and the finality of the earlier decision on excess duty payment further supported the dismissal of the appeal.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues surrounding the rejection of the refund claim, the interpretation of relevant rules, and the tribunal's reasoning behind dismissing the appeal based on the specific circumstances of the case.