2014 (1) TMI 1210 - HC - Central Excise

Denial of refund claim - Invocation of extended period of limitation - Whether the extended period of time can be invoked Held that - Since the finding of CESTAT that the respondent was adding DEP in duty paid procured ENA which was within the knowledge of the Excise is a finding of fact, leave was sought by the appellant to amend the said Excise appeals. Despite several adjournments being given the said amendment could not be carried out since the relevant files could not be traced - Since the relevant material could not be produced on record, it is now not open for the appellant to challenge the finding of fact recorded by the CESTAT and as such, in our view, therefore, there is no substantial question of law involved in both the appeals - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal challenging CESTAT judgment and order on refund claim of excise duty.

Analysis:
The Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise filed two appeals challenging the judgment and order passed by CESTAT, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai. The respondent had filed a refund claim of Rs. 5,00,000/- based on an inquiry conducted by the Directorate of Central Excise Intelligence. The respondent contended that the amount was collected as excise duty on Denatured alcohol. The Excise authority rejected the refund claim, leading to appeals and subsequent proceedings. CESTAT, in its judgment, found that the extended period of time for invoking the demand could not be justified by the Revenue as the addition of DEP in duty paid procured ENA was a well-known fact and not a case of suppression. Consequently, the case was remanded for quantifying the demand within the normal period of limitation. The appellant sought to amend the appeals but failed due to the unavailability of relevant files. As a result, the court held that without the relevant material on record, challenging the factual findings of CESTAT was not feasible. Therefore, no substantial question of law was involved, leading to the dismissal of both appeals.

This judgment primarily revolves around the challenge to the CESTAT decision on a refund claim of excise duty. The key issue was whether the extended period of time for invoking the demand was justified by the Revenue. CESTAT found that the addition of DEP in duty paid procured ENA was a known fact and not a case of suppression, leading to the remand of the case for quantifying the demand within the normal limitation period. The inability to produce relevant material for amending the appeals resulted in the court's decision that challenging CESTAT's factual findings was not possible, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeals.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the challenges to the CESTAT decision on a refund claim of excise duty. It focused on the justification of the extended period for demand invocation, with CESTAT ruling in favor of the respondent based on the known nature of the DEP addition. The court's decision to dismiss the appeals was based on the inability to challenge CESTAT's factual findings due to the unavailability of relevant material for amending the appeals.