2018 (5) TMI 1115 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - refund of the duty paid initially at the time of transfer of assets on the ground that the said amount has been paid twice - rejection of refund on the allegation that no documentary evidences corroborating excess reversal/payment made by the appellant - Held that - it is clear that there was an excess payment of duty by Unit-2 at the time of transfer of assets to Unit-2A and thereafter, the appellant had to pay again the said amount of CENVAT credit by TR6 challan itself shows that duty was paid twice for which the appellant is entitled to get the refund and there is no need of production of any documents to substantiate the same when it is clearly admitted in the Order-in-Original that there was excess payment - refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Recovery of irregular CENVAT credit, denial of refund claim.

Analysis:
The appeal was against the Commissioner (A)'s order rejecting the appellant's appeal and upholding the Order-in-Original, which confirmed the demand for recovery of irregular CENVAT credit amounting to &8377; 28,63,786/-. The appellant transferred assets from Unit 2 to Unit-2A, with Unit-2 availing CENVAT credit on the duty paid. The Additional Commissioner confirmed the demand for ineligible CENVAT credit of &8377; 8,34,639/-, which the appellant paid. Subsequently, the appellant sought a refund of the same amount, claiming it was paid twice. The Deputy Commissioner rejected the refund claim for lack of documentary evidence. The appeal before the Commissioner (A) was also dismissed, leading to the present appeal.

The appellant argued that the impugned order failed to appreciate the facts and law, emphasizing the admission of double payment of duty at the time of asset transfer and subsequent reversal. Referring to the Order-in-Original, the appellant contended that excess duty payment was evident, entitling them to a refund without further documentation. Citing a tribunal decision, the appellant supported their claim.

The AR defended the impugned order, but the Tribunal found that the duty was paid when assets were transferred from Unit-2 to Unit-2A, with subsequent CENVAT credit availed and reversed. The Additional Commissioner held that the appellant wrongly availed CENVAT credit, leading to the demand confirmation. Despite the appellant's payment and refund claim, rejected due to lack of proof of double payment, the Tribunal noted the clear admission of excess duty payment in the Order-in-Original. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and granting the refund to the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, ruling that the denial of the refund claim was unsustainable in law due to the evident excess duty payment, as acknowledged in the Order-in-Original. The Tribunal's decision provided consequential relief to the appellant, overturning the rejection of the refund claim and allowing the appeal.