2000 (1) TMI 112 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal by Revenue against refund claim rejection.
2. Claim for refund based on finalization of provisional assessment.
3. Authorization for filing appeal by Commissioner.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the rejection of a refund claim by the Assistant Commissioner. The assessee had paid duty on a provisional basis and executed a bond to pay the differential duty upon finalization of assessment. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claim, but the appellate authority allowed the appeal and directed the refund. The correctness of this order was challenged by the Revenue.

2. The Commissioner noted that the provisional assessments were being finalized by the Range Superintendent based on Rule 174-I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The manufacturer had undertaken to pay the differential duty on finalization of assessment. The claim for refund based on finalization of a provisional assessment is protected from the law of unjust enrichment, as established by the Supreme Court in a previous case. The Revenue's appeal against the refund claim was found to be without merit.

3. The Commissioner's authorization for filing the appeal was questioned due to the lack of proper grounds specified in the order. It was observed that the Commissioner did not apply his mind to the grounds before authorizing the appeal. This was deemed as a callous attitude not in compliance with the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Despite this, the order passed by the Appellate Commissioner was found to be legally sound and in line with the Supreme Court's decision. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the refund claim based on the finalization of the provisional assessment.