2000 (3) TMI 116 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Correct classification of the product "Hose Assembly."
2. Refund of excess duty paid by the appellants.
3. Entitlement of the appellant to take credit of excess duty paid in their PLA.

Issue 1:
The dispute revolved around the correct classification of the appellant's product, "Hose Assembly," under Heading 84.31 against the Revenue's claim under Heading 4009.92. The Tribunal's Order No. 105/89 resolved the issue in favor of the appellant, confirming the correct classification under Heading 84.31. The appellants paid a higher rate of duty under protest during the dispute, leading to excess duty payments totaling Rs.12,81,308.61 in various RT-12 returns.

Issue 2:
Following the Tribunal's order, the appellants sought a refund of the excess duty paid during the disputed period. Despite multiple applications and orders from the Tribunal directing the Department to grant the refund, no action was taken. Consequently, the appellants credited the excess duty amount in their PLA based on the assessed RT-12 returns. Subsequently, a show-cause notice was issued proposing to recover the credited amount as an erroneous refund under Section 11A.

Issue 3:
The main contention raised by the Revenue was that the appellants should have filed a refund claim instead of taking credit in their PLA, as no specific order was issued by the Superintendent directing the appellants to take credit. In response, the appellants argued that Rule 173-I(2) allowed them to take credit of excess duty paid based on the assessed RT-12 returns without the need for a separate refund claim. The Commissioner (Appeals) supported this argument, emphasizing that Rule 173-I(2) empowered the assessee to take credit of excess duty in their account current upon receipt of the assessment's order.

The Tribunal, after considering both sides' submissions, upheld the appellants' right to take credit of the excess duty paid in their PLA under Rule 173-I(2). Referring to previous decisions, the Tribunal emphasized that no separate refund application was necessary when excess payment was determined during the assessment process. The Tribunal cited precedents where it was established that Rule 173-I(2) allowed for the credit or adjustment of excess payment without the requirement of a refund application under Section 11B of the Act. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, stating that the provisions of Rule 173-I(2) were clear, and no specific order was needed for the assessee to take credit during the assessment of RT-12 returns.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal and dismissed it, following the established precedents and the clear provisions of Rule 173-I(2) regarding the entitlement of the appellant to take credit of excess duty paid without a separate refund claim.