2018 (3) TMI 834 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of excess payment of duty - duty paid under protest - Principles of natural justice - both the lower authorities have not gone into details of the case and the issue needs reconsideration on the face of the fact that Revenue officers had specifically stated in a correspondence to appellant that rubber tyres, interchangeable tyre treads, tyre flaps and inner tubes will not get covered under parts or accessories under N/N. 11/2006-CE. - the issue needs reconsideration by the adjudicating authority - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Refund of excess duty payment under Section 4A vs. Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944 for rubber tyres and inner tubes valuation under notification No. 11/2006-CE.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against Order-in-Appeal No: 39/2007 (H-I) CE, dated 11.12.2007. Despite the absence of the appellant or any request for adjournment, the matter was taken up for disposal due to the appeal's vintage. The issue pertained to the refund of excess duty payment by the appellant for items cleared under protest, applying Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944, instead of Section 4. The appellant claimed that rubber tyres and inner tubes were not parts, thus discharging duty under Section 4. However, they later paid duty under Section 4A upon departmental advice and sought a refund, which was rejected based on the applicability of valuation under section 4A due to notification No. 11/2006.

Upon review, it was found that neither lower authority delved into the case details adequately. The Revenue officers had communicated to the appellant that the items in question would not be considered parts or accessories under notification No. 11/2006-CE. This crucial communication was not given due weight by the lower authorities in their decision-making process. Consequently, the Tribunal opined that the issue required reconsideration by the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal refrained from expressing any opinion on the case's merits, setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter back for fresh consideration, emphasizing adherence to the principles of natural justice.

In conclusion, the appeal was disposed of with the direction to the adjudicating authority to reevaluate the issue in light of the communication from Revenue officers and following the principles of natural justice.