1998 (9) TMI 310 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Stay application by Revenue against lower appellate authority's order.
2. Admissibility of refund claims filed by respondents.
3. Challenge by Revenue on the grounds of unjust enrichment.
4. Maintainability of appeals filed by Revenue against lower appellate authority's order.
5. Applicability of Notification No. 85/95-C.E., dated 18-5-1995.
6. Dismissal of appeals by the Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The Revenue filed a stay application against the lower appellate authority's order, seeking to stay the operation of the impugned order. The lower appellate authority had held that the question of unjust enrichment did not arise at that stage as the goods were still with the respondents. The respondents had filed refund claims for higher countervailing duty charged on Synthetic Waste, based on a decrease in the duty rate. The original authority found the refunds admissible but denied them on the grounds of unjust enrichment, directing the refund amount to be deposited in the Consumer Welfare Fund.

2. The respondents appealed against the original authority's finding on unjust enrichment to the lower appellate authority. The lower appellate authority ruled in favor of the respondents, stating that unjust enrichment did not arise as the goods were still in possession of the respondents. The lower appellate authority set aside the original order and ordered the refund amounts to be paid to the respondents.

3. The Revenue challenged the lower appellate authority's order by filing two appeals corresponding to each Bill of Entry. The Advocate for the respondents argued that the appeal was not maintainable as the Revenue did not challenge the original authority's finding on the admissibility of refund, which had become final. The Revenue's appeal focused on the admissibility of the refund based on the applicability of Notification No. 85/95-C.E., dated 18-5-1995, to the imported goods.

4. The Tribunal considered arguments from both sides and agreed with the Advocate for the respondents. It was noted that the original authority had indeed considered the Notification No. 85/95-C.E., dated 18-5-1995, and found the respondents eligible for the refund amounts. As the Revenue did not challenge this finding before the lower appellate authority, it had become final. Therefore, the Tribunal ruled that the Revenue's challenge to this finding at this stage was not permissible. The Tribunal also noted that the Revenue had not challenged the lower appellate authority's finding on unjust enrichment in its appeals, rendering the appeals themselves not maintainable. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

5. The Tribunal's dismissal of the appeals led to the disposal of the stay petitions as well.