2000 (10) TMI 394 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility of refund under amended provisions of law
2. Implementation of Tribunal's final orders
3. Stay of operation of the Reference order

Eligibility of Refund under Amended Provisions of Law:
The case involved manufacturers of cement who filed claims for refund of duty paid under protest for clearances during a specific period. The Tribunal initially allowed the appeal and granted relief by excluding equalized freight from the assessable value. However, an amendment to Section 11B of the Central Excise Act required the excise duty claimed as differential duty to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund if the claimant failed to prove that the duty had not been passed on. The respondents filed a Writ Petition before the High Court, which directed the Assistant Commissioner to assess the eligibility for refund. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claim, citing the amended provisions applicable to pending cases before 29-9-91.

Implementation of Tribunal's Final Orders:
Following the Assistant Commissioner's rejection, the assessees appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) who also dismissed their appeal. Subsequently, the Tribunal allowed the assessees' appeal with consequential relief. The Department filed a Reference application, a rectification of mistake application, and a stay petition against the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's applications and directed the Commissioner to implement its final orders from 27-1-98 and 6-6-89.

Stay of Operation of the Reference Order:
The Revenue sought a stay of the Reference order directing the implementation of the Tribunal's final orders. The Tribunal noted that the High Court had directed a question of law regarding the application of the amended Section 11B to cases with pending implementation of refund orders. Considering the matter under the High Court's jurisdiction, the Tribunal rejected the application, suggesting the Revenue seek a stay from the High Court where the Reference application was pending.

In summary, the judgment addressed the eligibility of refund under amended provisions of law, the implementation of Tribunal's final orders, and the stay of operation of the Reference order. The Tribunal upheld the amended provisions, dismissed Revenue's applications, and directed the High Court for further action, emphasizing the need for the Revenue to seek a stay from the High Court where the Reference application was under consideration.