2007 (11) TMI 215 - AT - Central Excise

Excess duty drawback in respect of exports made - assessee accepted the wrong claim of duty drawback & made payment - no adjudication proceedings for confirmation of excess claimed drawback were initiated by revenue for a longer period held that Revenue has no authority/jurisdiction to keep the said deposit amount with them for unlimited time in absence of any determination of the duty - Revenue has no justification for keeping the said amount with them refund of same is allowed

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim related to excess duty drawback.
2. Jurisdiction of Assistant Commissioner for refund claim.
3. Applicability of Section 11B.
4. Validity of the impugned order by the Commissioner (Appeals).
5. Authority of Revenue to retain deposit amount without initiation of proceedings.

Analysis:

1. The case involves a dispute regarding a refund claim related to excess duty drawback received by the respondent. The officers of Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence conducted checks and found the excess duty drawback claim. The respondent admitted the error and made payments to the Revenue. Subsequently, the respondent filed a refund claim, which was initially rejected by the Assistant Commissioner.

2. The Revenue contended that the Assistant Commissioner had no authority to allow the refund claim as it did not pertain to Customs or Central Excise duty. The Revenue argued that the refund claim should have been filed with the officer from whom the drawback was claimed. Additionally, the Revenue objected to the appellate authority ordering a refund before the investigations were finalized.

3. The issue of the applicability of Section 11B was raised by the Revenue, arguing that the provisions did not apply to the refund claim in question. The Revenue claimed that the refund was not justified as the excess drawback had been admitted by the assessee, and the investigations were still ongoing.

4. The impugned order by the Commissioner (Appeals) directed the Revenue to refund the amount to the respondent. The appellate authority found fault with the Assistant Commissioner's communication and concluded that the Revenue had no justification to retain the deposit amount without initiating proceedings or determining the duty due from the assessee.

5. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing that the Revenue lacked the authority to retain the deposit amount for an indefinite period without initiating proceedings or determining the duty owed by the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the appellate authority's decision to order the refund to the respondent, highlighting the Revenue's lack of justification for withholding the amount.