2017 (12) TMI 942 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - case of Revenue is that the appellant is liable to pay interest on the CENVAT credit taken wrongly even though it was reversed before its utilisation in terms of Rule 14 of the CCR, 2004, and refund of interest not allowable - Held that - the department cannot take coercive action when the appeal is pending before the higher judicial forum and refund cannot be adjusted against arrears of revenue when the matter in dispute has not attained finality - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against rejection of refund claim for interest paid on CENVAT credit reversed before utilization.

Analysis:
The appeal was directed against the order passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) rejecting the refund claim of the appellant. The appellants, manufacturers of telecommunication equipment, filed a refund claim of &8377;1,73,953 on 12/07/2012 after an earlier order-in-appeal by the Commissioner(Appeals), Cochin. The refund claim was for interest paid on CENVAT credit wrongly taken and subsequently reversed before utilization in February 2009. The lower authority rejected the claim citing Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, stating the appellant was not eligible for the refund. The Commissioner(Appeals) later set aside the order and directed the refund, leading to a subsequent refund claim by the appellant. However, the lower authority appropriated the refunded amount towards pending interest, leading to the present appeal.

The appellant argued that the impugned order was not sustainable in law and contrary to binding judicial precedents. They pointed out that the appeal against the earlier order was pending before the Tribunal and had not attained finality, questioning the Department's coercive action to recover the amount. Citing legal authorities, the appellant contended that the Department cannot adjust refunds against disputed demands pending before appellate forums. Referring to a previous Tribunal order in favor of the appellant, they argued that the impugned order was unsustainable based on established legal principles.

On the other hand, the learned AR supported the findings of the impugned order. After hearing both parties and reviewing the submissions along with the cited legal precedents, the Tribunal held that the impugned order was not sustainable in law. Following the legal principles that coercive action cannot be taken when an appeal is pending before a higher judicial forum and refunds cannot be adjusted against disputed revenue, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by setting aside the impugned order with any consequential relief.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and providing relief based on the legal principles cited during the proceedings. The decision highlighted the importance of legal precedents and the limitations on Departmental actions concerning pending appeals and refund adjustments against disputed demands.