2018 (8) TMI 1164 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - mistake of law or not? - claim of refund on the ground that they did not receive any audit note nor any show cause notice indicating the liability of duty of 22, 70, 569/- - Held that - The requirements of Sections 11A(5) (6) & (7) ibid and Section 73(4A) ibid having been met by the assessee in order to avail the benefit of lower penalty no show cause notice was issued as mandated under said Sections and the proceedings were correctly concluded - there is no mistake of law which the Ld. Advocate could pinpoint - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against order following audit objections and voluntary deposit of duty, interest, and penalty.
- Refund claim due to alleged absence of show cause notice or audit note.
- Dispute regarding voluntary deposit and subsequent refund claim.
- Interpretation of relevant legal provisions for reduced penalty and show cause notice requirement.
- Applicability of case laws cited by the appellant.
- Final decision on the appeal and order.

Analysis:
- The appeal was filed against an order following an audit that raised objections, leading to the voluntary deposit of duty, interest, and penalty by the appellants. The audit took place from 24.12.2013 to 31.12.2013, and the appellants agreed with the objections, depositing the amount under specific legal provisions without the issuance of a show cause notice.

- The appellants subsequently filed a refund claim on the grounds of not receiving a show cause notice or audit note indicating a duty liability of ?22,70,569. The refund claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority, leading to the appeal. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection, prompting the appellants to file the current appeal.

- The appellant's argument centered on a perceived mistake of law on their part, emphasizing the absence of a show cause notice post the voluntary deposit. The appellant cited specific case laws to support their contention, aiming to secure the refund based on procedural grounds.

- The Revenue, however, contended that the deposit was voluntary, as evidenced by a letter to the Assistant Commissioner, and that no mistake of law occurred. The Revenue highlighted the benefit the appellants received under the law, reducing their penalty significantly without the need for a show cause notice due to the specific legal provisions invoked.

- The Tribunal examined the facts, noting the agreement with audit objections, voluntary deposit, and issuance of an Audit Para Report covering the proceedings. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellants voluntarily deposited the amount after agreeing with the audit findings, as per the letter signed by the authorized signatory.

- The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument of coercion or pressure to deposit the amount, finding no evidence to support such claims. The Tribunal upheld the adjudication authority's decision, emphasizing the compliance with legal provisions allowing for reduced penalties and expedited proceedings without a show cause notice.

- Ultimately, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal, upholding the legality and correctness of the impugned order. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the decision reached based on the compliance with relevant legal provisions and the absence of a mistake of law as claimed by the appellants.