2010 (2) TMI 259 - HC - Central Excise

Refund of Cenvat Credit- The assessee had claimed refund on the premise that its product - ice-cream, which was an excisable product upto 1-3-2006, thereafter became a non-excisable product and therefore, the CENVAT credit outstanding in the name of assessee s account should be refunded. The Adjudicating Officer allowed the application in part and disallowed the application in so far as the credit related to the excise duty with reference to the stock and unfinished products in the custody of the assessee. CESTAT allowed the refund of cenvat credit in full - Held that- the differential of duty liability being a meager sum of Rs. 50,000/- and that too in respect of a product on which, State did not want to levy duty after 1-3-2006, we are of the definite opinion that, this is not a matter deserving our attention in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 35-G of the Act, irrespective of submissions made and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission.

Issues:
1. Appeal filed by Revenue-Commissioner of Central Excise against CESTAT order.
2. Refund application allowed in part by first adjudicating authority.
3. Full relief granted on appeal by first appellate authority.
4. Dismissal of Revenue's appeal by CESTAT.
5. Claim for refund based on excisable product becoming non-excisable.
6. Disallowance of refund related to excise duty on stock and unfinished products.
7. Argument regarding entitlement to claim refund based on available stock.
8. Question of duty liability and validity of disallowing refund.

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to an appeal filed by the Revenue-Commissioner of Central Excise against an order passed by the CESTAT, South Zone Bench, Bangalore. The appeal was made under Section 35-C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, challenging the order granting refund to the assessee.

2. Initially, the first adjudicating authority allowed the refund application of the assessee in part, approving Rs. 43,414. However, the assessee appealed, leading to the first appellate authority setting aside the order and granting full relief on the refund application amounting to Rs. 82,886.

3. Subsequently, the Revenue appealed to the CESTAT, which dismissed the appeal on 24-9-2008. This dismissal prompted the further appeal by the Revenue to the High Court under Section 35-C of the Act.

4. The crux of the matter revolved around the claim for refund made by the assessee concerning the transition of their product, ice-cream, from being excisable to non-excisable post a specific date. The dispute also involved the disallowance of refund related to excise duty on stock and unfinished products in the possession of the assessee.

5. The argument put forth on behalf of the Revenue emphasized the consideration of stock in trade produced before the cut-off date and the eligibility to avail CENVAT credit on manufactured goods. The contention was that the adjudicating authority rightly examined the available stock, leading to the disallowance of the refund claim related to duty liability on such stock.

6. The judgment further delved into the aspect of duty liability, highlighting the insignificance of the differential duty amount in question. It was noted that the matter did not warrant attention under Section 35-G of the Act, especially considering the minimal duty liability on a product exempted from duty post a specific date.

7. Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the appeal at the stage of admission, indicating that the matter did not merit further consideration given the circumstances and the legal aspects surrounding the claim for refund and duty liability on the transition of the product from excisable to non-excisable status.

← Previous Next →