9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 295 - AT - Central ExciseRecovery of erroneous refund of the duty paid in PLA - no substantial expansion exceeding 25% of installed capacity - Suppression of Facts - No expansion of critical machineries related to the installed capacity - Wrong assessment of the installed capacity - period July 2008 to October 2008, February 2009 and April 2009 to July 2009 ( upto 07.07.2009). Substantial expansion of the Appellant unit - HELD THAT - The issue of substantial expansion of the Appellant unit has already been adjudicated by the Ld. Commissioner of Central Excise in COMMR. OF C. EX., DIBRUGARH VERSUS HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGES (P) LTD. 2005 (1) TMI 504 - CESTAT, KOLKATA , against which the Revenue filed an appeal before this Tribunal. This Tribunal vide order dated 20th January, 2005, rejected the appeal of the Revenue. Therefore, raising the issue of substantial expansion again by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) is bad in law which has attained finality. In the impugned order, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has gone beyond the scope of the appeal and held that the appellant has not fulfilled the condition of substantial expansion. It is observed that this issue was not before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The issue before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) was that the refund sanctioned to the appellant for the period in dispute was erroneous or not. However, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has decided the issue of substantial expansion which was not there before him. The issue of substantial expansion has already been decided for the unit in the Tribunal orders. The same issue against the same unit cannot be raised again, which is against the principle of res judicata - the impugned order is liable to be set aside - Appeal allowed.
Issues involved:
The judgment involves the issue of eligibility for exemption u/s Notification No. 33/99-CE, erroneous refund claims, substantial expansion of industrial unit, and the principle of res judicata. Eligibility for Exemption u/s Notification No. 33/99-CE: The Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of aerated water, claimed exemption under Notification No. 33/99-CE for substantial expansion carried out in 1999. The Department alleged wrongful availment of the exemption based on suppression of facts, no expansion of critical machineries, and wrong assessment of installed capacity. However, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong found the charges baseless, leading to the dropping of proceedings. The CESTAT upheld this decision, emphasizing substantial expansion of the industrial unit as required by the Notification. Erroneous Refund Claims: Multiple Show Cause Notices were issued to the Appellant for alleged erroneous refunds. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) set aside a refund order, stating that the Appellant did not fulfill the condition of substantial expansion required for the exemption. The Appellant argued that this issue had already been decided in their favor by the Tribunal in previous cases, citing specific judgments. They contended that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) exceeded the scope of the appeal by revisiting the issue of substantial expansion, which had already been settled. Substantial Expansion of Industrial Unit: The Tribunal observed that the issue of substantial expansion had already been adjudicated in favor of the Appellant in previous cases, and the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) revisiting this matter was deemed legally improper. The Tribunal held that the same issue against the same unit cannot be raised again, invoking the principle of res judicata. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal by the Appellant was allowed. Principle of Res Judicata: The Tribunal reiterated that the issue of substantial expansion had already been conclusively decided in previous Tribunal orders in favor of the Appellant. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) revisiting this issue was deemed inappropriate, as it had already attained finality. The Tribunal held that the impugned order was against the principle of res judicata and set it aside, allowing the appeal by the Appellant.
|
