2001 (1) TMI 398 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against rejection of refund claim by Assistant Collector based on a judgment from the Honourable Patna High Court.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi deals with an appeal filed by the Revenue against the rejection of a refund claim by the Assistant Collector. The case originated from a show cause notice issued to the respondents regarding duty demand on billets made from ingots received at nil rate of duty. The Additional Collector confirmed the duty demand, which the respondents paid under protest. Subsequently, the respondents filed a writ petition in the Honourable Patna High Court, claiming the benefit of an exemption notification. The High Court allowed their claim, leading to a refund application by the respondents. However, the Assistant Collector rejected the refund claim, stating that the judgment from the High Court did not apply to the issue before him. The Collector (Appeals) set aside the Assistant Collector's order and remanded the matter for re-examination. The Revenue appealed this decision.

The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both sides. The respondents contended that since they paid the duty amount under protest and based on the High Court's judgment, they were entitled to a refund. The Revenue argued that since the order of the Additional Collector was never challenged, it became final and no refund could be allowed. The Tribunal noted that the respondents did not challenge the Additional Collector's order, which became binding on them. The High Court's judgment did not nullify the Additional Collector's order, which had attained finality.

The Tribunal emphasized that even if the Additional Collector's order was erroneous, the respondents should have challenged it through proper channels. Failure to do so meant that the order remained final and binding. The Tribunal cited legal precedents to support this position. It concluded that the High Court's judgment did not invalidate the Additional Collector's order, and the refund claim based on it was not permissible. Therefore, the Collector (Appeals) was found to be erroneous in directing a re-examination of the refund claim.

The Assistant Collector's rejection of the refund claim was deemed appropriate, as the High Court's judgment did not apply to the issue at hand. The Tribunal distinguished another case cited by the respondents, highlighting that in this instance, the respondents failed to challenge the Additional Collector's order despite it being appealable. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Collector (Appeals) decision and upheld the Assistant Collector's order disallowing the refund claim.

In conclusion, the appeal filed by the Revenue was accepted, and the order-in-original of the Assistant Collector disallowing the refund claim was restored.