1986 (1) TMI 286 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 11B regarding the demand for repayment of duty erroneously paid.
2. Whether the demand for repayment under Section 11A constitutes a review of the predecessor's order.
3. Legality of the Asstt. Collector's order demanding repayment.
4. Applicability of Section 35 for challenging predecessor's order.
5. Cross objection filed by M/s. Sarang Spring Mfg. Co.

Analysis:

1. The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal involved the interpretation of Section 11B of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, concerning the demand for repayment of duty erroneously paid by M/s. Sarang Spring Mfg. Co. The Asstt. Collector had issued a demand for repayment of Rs. 48,999.69, which was considered time-barred under Section 11B due to a part of the refund claim being received after the limitation period. The Collector (Appeals) set aside the Asstt. Collector's order, stating that the issue should have been addressed through Section 35 by filing an appeal rather than reopening the question of refund.

2. The main contention revolved around whether the demand for repayment under Section 11A constituted a review of the predecessor's order. The Collector argued that the Asstt. Collector had the statutory right to demand repayment under Section 11A, which was not a review of the earlier decision. On the other hand, M/s. Sarang Spring Mfg. Co. contended that the successor did not have the power to review the predecessor's order and relied on a Tribunal decision in Guest Keen Williams Ltd.

3. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of Section 11A and concluded that the demand for repayment under this section did not amount to a review of the predecessor's order. It was noted that Section 11A explicitly defined refund and provided for the demand for repayment of erroneously granted refunds. The Tribunal distinguished the case of Guest Keen Williams Ltd., stating that the facts of that case were different from the present appeal. The Tribunal upheld the Collector's argument that the successor's action to recover the erroneously sanctioned refund was in accordance with Section 11A and did not involve a review of the predecessor's order.

4. The Tribunal dismissed the cross objection filed by M/s. Sarang Spring Mfg. Co., noting that it was not legally maintainable as the company had received full relief under the Collector (Appeals) order. The Tribunal held that since M/s. Sarang Spring Mfg. Co. did not have any grievance against the Collector (Appeals) order, they could not file a cross objection against it during the appeal before the Tribunal.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal of the Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara, setting aside the Collector (Appeals) order and restoring the Asstt. Collector's order demanding repayment of duty erroneously paid by M/s. Sarang Spring Mfg. Co.