2018 (2) TMI 1246 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of duty paid - refund claim was rejected by the authorities below on the ground that this Tribunal has considered the issue of imposition of penalty and observed that confirmation of the demand along with interest is to be appropriated in terms of Section 11A (2B) of the Act - Held that - the amount paid during the course of investigation by the appellant along with interest has been appropriated by this Tribunal. In that circumstances the refund claims are not maintainable. Therefore the authorities below has rightly rejected the refund claims of the appellant - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim denial based on previous Tribunal decision regarding penalty imposition and limitation period for show cause notice issuance.

Analysis:
The appellant appealed against the denial of a refund claim for duty paid during an investigation, following a Tribunal decision dropping the penalty against the appellant. An investigation revealed duty payment by the appellant for the period Jan. 2005 to April. 2006, with subsequent issuance of a show cause notice for penalty imposition. The appellant challenged this, citing payment of duty and interest during the investigation, arguing against the invocation of the extended limitation period. The Tribunal held that penalty imposition was unwarranted due to the duty payment and interest settlement during the investigation, as per Section 11A(2B) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant then filed a refund claim, which was rejected on the basis of the Tribunal's previous decision regarding penalty imposition and duty payment appropriation. The appellant contended that the show cause notice being time-barred necessitated a refund of the pre-deposit amount, citing various legal precedents in support.

The Tribunal, after hearing both parties, referred to its earlier order emphasizing the absence of suppression or fraud warranting the extended limitation period or penalty imposition. It reiterated that the duty payment and interest settlement during the investigation entitled the appellant to benefit under Section 11A(2B) of the Act, precluding the need for a show cause notice. The Tribunal noted that the appellant did not challenge these findings in a higher forum, rendering them final. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the appropriation of the amount paid during the investigation and rejected the refund claim. It also dismissed the relevance of the legal precedents cited by the appellant, as the Tribunal's previous findings on duty payment appropriation were conclusive. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no fault in the impugned order and upheld the denial of the refund claim, dismissing the appellant's appeal.