9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (1) TMI 447 - AT - Central ExciseSeeking refund of excess duty paid - Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT - Section 3 A(4) of of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is followed as the commissioner has decided the issue in principle and remanded the matter simply, only for the purposes of calculation of the duty payable. He exercised the quasi-judicial powers in terms of Section 3 A (4) and administratively, directed his subordinate to calculate the duty. In the circumstances, it is found that there is no infirmity in the order passed and directions given by the Commissioner. It is found that the interest of justice is not in jeopardy if the directions of the learned Commissioner are sustained. However, since the matter pertains to the period September, 1997 to March, 2000 and redetermination of duty has been directed, vide M/S RHL PROFILES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KANPUR 2017 (8) TMI 1092 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD , and such finalisation has not taken place till date. Accordingly, the jurisdictional Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner sre directed to comply with the directions of this Tribunal as contained in Final Order M/S RHL PROFILES LTD. and to determine the duty payable on actual production basis, at the rates specified under Section 3A (3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, within a period of 12 weeks, from the date of service/ receipt of this order - the appellants would be entitled for refund of excess duty paid, if any, along with applicable interest, as per law. The Adjudicating Authority Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner are directed to refund the duty excess paid, within 4 weeks of quantification of the duty payable, as above, along with interest, as per law - appeal disposed off.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 3-A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding determination of duty payable with reference to actual production. 2. Delegation of powers by the Commissioner of Central Excise to subordinate officers. 3. Validity of remand order to Deputy/Assistant Commissioner for redetermination of duty. 4. Entitlement to refund of excess duty paid. Analysis: Issue 1: Interpretation of Section 3-A(4) The appellant contended that the impugned order violated Section 3-A(4) of the Act, which mandates determination of duty payable based on actual production by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The appellant argued that the Commissioner, not subordinate officers, should re-determine the duty. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner exercised quasi-judicial powers under Section 3-A(4) by remanding the matter for duty calculation, finding no fault with this approach. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing that the interest of justice was not compromised by the delegation to the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner. Issue 2: Delegation of Powers The appellant raised concerns about the delegation of powers by the Commissioner to junior officers, citing a Supreme Court ruling that delegation is permissible only when authorized by statute. The Tribunal, however, found the delegation in this case to be within the Commissioner's authority under Section 3-A(4) for administrative purposes related to duty calculation. The Tribunal concluded that the delegation did not violate the law as the Commissioner retained control over the decision-making process. Issue 3: Validity of Remand Order The Tribunal addressed the appellant's argument that the remand order to the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner was incorrect due to the availability of necessary documents for duty determination. However, the Tribunal found the Commissioner's decision to remand the matter for calculation of duty payable based on actual production reasonable, especially since the relevant documents were not readily available before the Commissioner. The Tribunal upheld the remand order as a valid administrative step to ensure accurate duty assessment. Issue 4: Entitlement to Refund The appellant sought a refund of excess duty paid, claiming entitlement based on the approximate duty calculated on an actual basis. The Tribunal directed the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner to comply with the Tribunal's previous order for redetermination of duty within a specified timeframe. The Tribunal also confirmed the appellant's entitlement to a refund of excess duty paid, emphasizing the need for timely refund along with applicable interest. In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal by modifying the impugned order to align with the directions provided, ensuring compliance with the legal provisions and the appellant's entitlement to a refund of excess duty paid.
|
