2015 (12) TMI 801 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - amount was deposited willingly and voluntarily during the course of investigation - refund was rejected as Refund application is premature - Held that - Incidence of levy of Central Excise duty is manufacture or production of excisable goods. If any amount is collected or retained by the Central Excise authorities, which statutorily is not required to be levied, then on filing of formal application by the assessee, such amount has to be refunded. I find from the available records that duty liability on account of investigation has not been determined against respondent by adjudication process. Therefore, in absence of determination of any outstanding liability, the amount paid by the respondent cannot be retained by the Revenue, in absence of any specific authority provided under the statute. - No infirmity in the impugned order - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against refund claim allowed by Commissioner (Appeals)
- Premature refund application submission
- Character of deposits made during investigation
- Interpretation of statutory provisions for refund claim
- Reference to judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court
- Determination of duty liability by adjudication process
- Authority to retain amount paid by respondent
- Applicability of statutory provisions for levy and collection
- Revenue's entitlement to retain funds without statutory backing

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal filed by the Revenue against an order by the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing a refund claim of Rs. 50,00,000 in favor of the respondent. The respondent, a manufacturer of MS ingots and MS Bars, had deposited the amount during an investigation by DGCI Officers and subsequently sought a refund, contending that the deposit was not excise duty as it was not related to the removal of excisable goods from the factory. The Revenue argued that the refund application was premature as the amount was voluntarily deposited pending the investigation, and refund should only be considered after the conclusion of adjudication proceedings.

The Tribunal analyzed the statutory provisions and held that if an amount collected by the authorities is not required to be levied, it must be refunded upon application by the assessee. Since the duty liability regarding the investigation was not determined through adjudication, the Revenue could not retain the amount without specific statutory authority. The Tribunal cited a judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court to support the principle that any tax or duty must be levied in accordance with the law and supported by appropriate statutory provisions.

The Tribunal concluded that in the absence of statutory backing for the Revenue to retain the funds collected during the investigation, the refund claim was valid. The judgment emphasized that authorities must act within the bounds of statutory law and cannot retain money without legal sanction. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, upholding the impugned order allowing the refund claim in favor of the respondent.