2018 (5) TMI 1658 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of pre-deposit - period of limitation - Forfeiture of right to pay duty by utilizing the Cenvat credit - recovery of the erroneously granted refund - Appellant did not pay the entire amount from their PLA account - Held that - The entire grievance and the basis of the Revenue for recovery of the erroneously granted refund, which was the Tribunal s order, stand set aside by the Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of MAN STRUCTURALS PVT. LTD. VERSUS CESTAT, NEW DELHI 2018 (4) TMI 1497 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT , where it was held that the limitation period would start not from the date of deposit but from the date of the decision by Commissioner (Appeals) which was decided on 21-4-2006 (Annexure-3). As a consequence, the Commissioner (Appeals) order holding the refund to be within the limitation period stands and the order of the Assistant Commissioner sanctioning the refund claim in terms of the order of Commissioner (Appeals), cannot be found to be erroneous - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Recovery of duty paid through Cenvat credit account.
2. Show cause notice for recovery of remaining duty amount.
3. Refund application barred by limitation.
4. Challenge to the order-in-original rejecting refund claim.
5. Appeal against the rejection of refund claim.
6. Tribunal's order on the appeals filed by the Revenue.
7. Recovery of erroneously granted refund under Section 11A.
8. Challenge to Tribunal's order by the appellant before High Court.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing galvanized tower parts, paid duty through Cenvat credit account during a period of forfeiture when their right to pay duty using Cenvat credit was forfeited. Despite paying a significant amount through Cenvat credit, a show cause notice was issued for the recovery of the remaining duty amount not paid from the PLA account.

2. The Additional Commissioner's order directed the appellant to deposit the outstanding amount in cash. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that payments through the Cenvat credit account were lawful, leading to a refund claim of the amount paid from PLA.

3. The Revenue contended that the refund application filed after a considerable period was time-barred, initiating proceedings against the appellant. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claim on the grounds of limitation, despite acknowledging its admissibility, leading to a challenge by both the appellant and the Revenue.

4. The Tribunal disposed of the appeals, upholding the Revenue's appeal and restoring the original adjudicating authority's order, prompting the Revenue to initiate proceedings for the recovery of the erroneously granted refund under Section 11A.

5. The subsequent challenge by the appellant before the High Court resulted in the High Court setting aside the Tribunal's order and restoring the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, thereby nullifying the basis for the recovery of the erroneously granted refund.

6. Consequently, the orders based on the Tribunal's decision were set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant, providing consequential relief. The High Court's decision rendered the Commissioner (Appeals) order on the refund application within the limitation period as valid and the Assistant Commissioner's sanctioning of the refund as non-erroneous.