2005 (3) TMI 127 - SC - Central Excise

Denial of Refund - Held that - Inasmuch as the order of the Tribunal impugned herein does not reflect these factual questions having been gone into by the Tribunal the impugned order dated 8-9-2004 is set aside. The case is sent back to the Tribunal. The Tribunal may as advised either await the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the matter of quantification of refund or else may itself go into the question and quantify the amount of refund. In the event of the Tribunal arriving at a finding that some amount is due and payable to the respondent by way of refund and the Revenue has unreasonably withheld the refund then the amount may be directed to be refunded with interest may be compound interest depending on the opinion formed by the Tribunal - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay condonation and notice issuance.
2. Tribunal's judgment on refund claims filed before and after 1-3-1997.
3. Dismissal of Revenue's special leave petition.
4. Tribunal's direction for refund compliance and Revenue's contentions on factual aspects.
5. Tribunal's consideration of factual questions and quantification of refund amount.
6. Tribunal's decision on awaiting Commissioner (Appeals) orders or quantifying refund itself.
7. Tribunal's authority to direct refund with interest if Revenue unreasonably withholds payment.

Analysis:
1. The Supreme Court, after condoning the delay and issuing notice, heard the matter finally with the consent of both parties. Leave was granted for the appeal.

2. The Tribunal's judgment divided the period into two parts concerning refund claims filed before and after 1-3-1997. The Tribunal allowed refund for claims filed before the specified date, setting aside the impugned order and granting appeals with consequential relief.

3. The Revenue's special leave petition against the Tribunal's order was dismissed by the Court on 6-2-2004.

4. A grievance was raised regarding the non-granting of refund as per the Tribunal's final order. The Tribunal directed the Revenue to refund the amount with interest within six weeks from the order date. The Revenue argued that the Tribunal did not consider factual aspects leading to the quantification of the refund amount.

5. The Revenue highlighted subsequent orders by the Assistant Commissioner quantifying the refund amount and addressing factual aspects. The Tribunal was urged to await the Commissioner (Appeals) decision or quantify the refund amount itself before issuing a blanket refund direction.

6. The Court acknowledged the Revenue's submission and set aside the impugned order, sending the case back to the Tribunal. The Tribunal was instructed to await the Commissioner (Appeals) decision on quantification or assess the refund amount independently. If the Tribunal finds the Revenue unreasonably withheld the refund, it may direct the refund with interest.

7. The parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on a specified date for further proceedings.