2018 (2) TMI 291 - AT - Customs

Refund claim - validity of SCN - new case made against appellant after issuance of SCN - Held that - the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 29.03.2004 holding that the claim is within the period of limitation has become final and the Revenue has not filed appeal against the same. Therefore, the Revenue has to refund the entire amount of refund claim of ₹ 8,23,824/- whereas the Revenue has only refunded the amount of ₹ 2,22,444/- on their own. In view of the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. EL.P. EM. Industries 2017 (9) TMI 702 - MADRAS HIGH COURT wherein it has been held that in the earlier proceedings, the adjudicating authority cannot raise the fresh ground for which the assessee has not been given any notice. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim rejection based on limitation period
2. Department's refusal to comply with Commissioner's order
3. Grounds for rejecting refund claim raised by original authority
4. Conduct of refund proceedings without adhering to principles of natural justice
5. Acceptance of partial refund as grounds for rejecting balance amount

Issue 1: Refund claim rejection based on limitation period
The appellant imported components and spares for liquid chromatograph systems and filed a claim for refund. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal, stating the claim was within the limitation period. However, the Department refused to comply, citing the acceptance of a partial refund by the appellant. The Tribunal held that the Department must refund the entire amount claimed as the Commissioner's decision had become final, and the Department had not filed an appeal against it. The Tribunal also cited precedents to support that the Department cannot raise fresh grounds for rejection without notice to the appellant.

Issue 2: Department's refusal to comply with Commissioner's order
Despite the Commissioner's order directing the refund, the Department refused to comply, arguing that the appellant had accepted a partial refund. The Tribunal emphasized that the Department is bound to follow the Commissioner's decision and grant the refund amount covered by it, as per legal provisions.

Issue 3: Grounds for rejecting refund claim raised by original authority
The original authority raised new grounds for rejecting the refund claim, which the appellant argued were impermissible under the law. The Tribunal agreed, stating that raising fresh grounds without notifying the appellant was beyond the scope of the proceedings. Precedents were cited to support this argument.

Issue 4: Conduct of refund proceedings without adhering to principles of natural justice
The appellant contended that the refund proceedings lacked adherence to the principles of natural justice, as orders were issued cryptically without proper findings. The Tribunal acknowledged this argument, citing legal decisions that emphasize the importance of following natural justice principles in such proceedings.

Issue 5: Acceptance of partial refund as grounds for rejecting balance amount
The appellant's acceptance of a partial refund was used by the Department to reject the claim for the balance amount. The Tribunal held that there is no estoppel against the law, and the acceptance of a partial refund cannot be a valid ground for rejecting the claim for the remaining amount, as supported by legal precedents.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal of the appellant and granting them the refund of the balance amount claimed.