2021 (8) TMI 1208 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of excess excise duty paid - amount paid in cases where copper prices was less than provisional prices - rejection of refund on the ground of time limitation - HELD THAT - Since the Hon ble High Court has set aside the order passed by the CESTAT, the Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal passed by way of impugned orders are not sustainable in law. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Time-barred refund claims under Section 11B of Central Excise Act.
2. Validity of impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals).
3. Impact of pending appeal before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka on the case.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the appellants, suppliers of PIJF telephone cables to M/s. BSNL, who raised invoices based on provisional copper prices and later raised supplementary invoices upon finalization of copper prices by BSNL. The Department contended that refund claims were time-barred under Section 11B. CESTAT Bangalore, in a previous order, held that since the appellant's request for provisional assessment was rejected, the refund claims were time-barred. The Department issued notices to recover the amount sanctioned earlier under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, leading to the present appeal.

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) partially allowed the appeal of the appellant and modified the Assistant Commissioner's order, confirming the demand in respect of one show-cause notice. The appellant challenged this decision, arguing that the impugned order was not sustainable in law as it was passed without appreciating the facts and the law. The appellant's appeal against CESTAT's order was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. The High Court later set aside CESTAT's order, rendering the Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal unsustainable in law. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal of the appellant was allowed with consequential relief.

3. The impact of the pending appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka was significant in this case. The appellant's counsel highlighted that the High Court's order on 18.03.2020 allowed the appeal of the appellant and set aside CESTAT's order. This development influenced the decision to set aside the impugned order and allow the appellant's appeal based on the High Court's decision. The final judgment, delivered on 16/08/2021, reflected the influence of the High Court's decision on the outcome of the case.