2017 (12) TMI 78 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - whether the Appellant are entitled to refund of ₹ 17,34,292/- paid in the year 1992? - Held that - pursuant to the Order of the Tribunal dated 30.6.2003, the Department has enforced three Bonds after furnishing the details of such Bonds and the conditions thereof appended to the Notification. The said Bonds have been appropriated against the refund amount of ₹ 17,34,292/-. The contention of the Appellant that the observation of the Tribunal in its order dated 30.6.2003 should not be followed, in my opinion, is misplaced, inasmuch as, no Appeal has been filed by either sides and the said order has been pursued by the Appellant in various forums. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to refund of duty paid in 1992.

Analysis:
The judgment involves the issue of whether the Appellant is entitled to a refund of the duty amounting to ?17,34,292 paid in 1992. The Appellant procured Polyester Staple Fibre (PSF) without duty payment for the manufacture of textile fabrics. Subsequently, a demand notice was issued for the recovery of duty along with interest and penalty as the PSF was not used in the finished product. The Tribunal had earlier observed that the demand for duty recovery from the Appellant was unsustainable under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. However, the Department was allowed to enforce the Bonds furnished by the Appellant. Three Bonds were enforced, totaling ?18,06,554, and the refund claim of ?17,34,292 was appropriated against the bond enforcement order. The Appellant challenged this enforcement, arguing that the Tribunal's observation regarding bond enforcement was merely an "obiter dictum" and not legally binding. The Revenue supported the Commissioner's findings, stating that the Tribunal's order should be followed as no appeal was filed against it. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and records, upheld the enforcement of the Bonds and rejected the Appeal, emphasizing that since no appeal was filed against the Tribunal's order, it remained binding on both parties.

In conclusion, the judgment affirms the enforcement of Bonds by the Department against the refund claim of the duty paid by the Appellant in 1992. The Appellant's argument that the Tribunal's observation regarding bond enforcement was not legally binding was dismissed, as no appeal was filed against the Tribunal's order. The decision highlights the importance of following legal procedures and challenging unfavorable orders through appropriate channels to seek redressal in such matters.