2004 (3) TMI 104 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund granted by Division III and IV.
2. Show Cause notice for recovery of erroneously refunded amount.
3. Protective notice for demand.
4. Addendum to show cause notice based on SLP filed by the department.
5. Decision to close the proceedings based on the affidavits filed by the Dy. Commissioners.

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to a situation where a refund of Rs. 2.5 lacs was granted by Division III and IV. The affidavits filed by the Dy. Commissioners highlighted the concern that if the Apex Court decides in favor of the Department, the refund might be erroneously allowed. The statutory requirement under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, necessitated the issuance of a Show Cause notice for the recovery of the refunded amount within one year.

2. The Show Cause notice was considered as a protective measure for demand, ensuring compliance with the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The intention behind the notice was to safeguard the interest of revenue in case of a favorable judgment from the Apex Court. The Tribunal acknowledged the purpose of the Show Cause notice and its significance in the context of the pending legal proceedings.

3. An addendum to the show cause notice was issued concerning a related matter pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Tribunal noted the relevance of the SLP filed by the department in a different case and its potential impact on the present notice. The decision-making process was influenced by the developments in the related case and the implications for the matter at hand.

4. During the hearing, both the ld. DR and ld. Counsel for the assessee presented their arguments. The Tribunal considered the affidavits filed by the respondents, which provided clarity on the purpose and implications of the Show Cause notice. Based on the undertaking given in the affidavits, the Tribunal decided to close the proceedings without any further action.

5. The final decision to close the proceedings was made based on the understanding derived from the affidavits filed by the Dy. Commissioners. The Tribunal found the explanations and assurances provided in the affidavits satisfactory, leading to the conclusion that no additional steps or actions were required in the case. The judgment reflected a balanced approach considering the legal requirements and the interests of all parties involved.