2018 (10) TMI 152 - AT - Central Excise

Recovery of refund erroneously granted - duty confirmed through the Order dated 15.06.2004 on finalization of assessment for the period from 25.07.2003 to 31.05.2004 was ₹ 1,85,35,232/- - duplicate demand - Held that - At Sl. No.(xvii) of the written submissions filed by the learned Counsel for appellant, we find that there were payments of ₹ 30 lakhs, ₹ 1,02,67,350/- and ₹ 1,17,577/-. Further, ₹ 51,50,305/- are available in the Cenvat credit account. Therefore, we find that by confirmation of demand of ₹ 12,79,223/- there is duplication of payment of duty - confirmation of demand of ₹ 12,79,223/- set aside. Matter remanded back to the Original Adjudicating Authority for verification of payment of ₹ 77,590/- for the period from 17.06.2004 to 30.06.2004 and thereafter to pass appropriate order in respect of demand of ₹ 77,590/-. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Recovery of erroneously granted refund, interpretation of exemption notification, provisional assessment, finalization of assessment, appeal process, refund claim, stay of demand, compliance with court orders, duplication of duty payment.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was against an Order-in-Appeal by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs regarding the recovery of a refund granted to the appellant, which was deemed erroneously granted by the revenue.
2. The appellant claimed exemption under Notification No.49/2003-CE and 50/2003-CE due to substantial expansion, leading to provisional assessment and eventual duty payment under protest.
3. The Deputy Commissioner finalized the assessment, demanding duty and ordering encashment of securities, which the appellant complied with, paying a total of Rs. 13,56,813.
4. The appellant filed a refund claim after the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed their appeal against the Deputy Commissioner's order.
5. However, the Revenue appealed to the Tribunal, resulting in a Final Order against the appellant, leading to further appeals up to the Supreme Court.
6. The Supreme Court directed deposits to stay recovery, acknowledging payments made by the appellant in compliance with court orders.
7. A Show Cause Notice was issued for recovery, leading to a subsequent Order-in-Original dropping the proceedings due to the pending matter before the Supreme Court.
8. The Revenue appealed against the Order-in-Original, arguing that the deposit made by the appellant did not constitute payment of duty until a final decision.
9. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the Revenue's appeal, citing lack of reference to the duty amount in the appellant's pre-deposit details before the Supreme Court.
10. The Tribunal found duplication of duty payment and set aside the confirmation of demand, remanding the matter for verification and appropriate order on the remaining demand.

This detailed analysis of the legal judgment highlights the complex procedural history and the key legal arguments involved in the case, leading to the final decision by the Tribunal.