2018 (6) TMI 1251 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of additional duty of Excise - duty paid under protest - entire facts not discussed - principles of Natural Justice - Held that - The Ld.Commissioner (Appeals) has passed a purfuctionery order without discussing the complete facts in the background of the judicial precedence in the matter. Therefore, the entire matter needs to be looked into by the adjudicating authority - Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim for additional duty of Excise on tea; Adjudicating authority's rejection of refund claim; Review order and appeal before Commissioner (Appeals); Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the adjudication order; Exemption conditions under Notification No.13/2003-CE and No.42/2003-CE; Non-recording of findings by adjudicating authority; Burden of proof on the appellant; Setting aside of impugned order by Commissioner (Appeals); Remand for proper examination by adjudicating authority.

Analysis:
The case involved a refund claim by M/s Jalan Golaghat Tea Company Pvt Ltd for additional duty of Excise paid on tea cleared during specific periods. The Adjudicating Authority sanctioned a partial refund but rejected the claim for certain periods based on a previous order. A Review Order was passed, and an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) led to setting aside of the adjudication order. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the Adjudicating Authority failed to properly assess the fulfillment of exemption conditions under the relevant notifications. The appellant contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) exceeded the show cause notice's scope and emphasized that the duty was paid under protest without passing it on to buyers.

The Tribunal noted the exemption conditions under Notification No.13/2003-CE and No.42/2003-CE for the relevant periods. The appellant had submitted the refund claim following these notifications, paying duty under protest and indicating non-passing of duty to buyers. The Commissioner (Appeals) was criticized for a cursory order lacking detailed analysis and ignoring judicial precedence. Consequently, the matter was remanded for a fresh examination by the adjudicating authority, emphasizing the importance of considering all evidence and legal precedents.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal by remanding the case for thorough reevaluation by the adjudicating authority. The adjudicating authority was directed to issue a new order within four months, ensuring a fair hearing for the appellant. The decision highlighted the significance of proper assessment based on evidence and legal principles, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive examination to reach a just outcome.