2016 (12) TMI 715 - AT - Central Excise

Jurisdiction of Dy. Commissioner - sanctioning the refund claim and crediting the refunded amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund under Rule 7 (6) of Central Excise Rules, 2004 - Held that - the jurisdictional Range Officer and not the Dy. Commissioner Concerned is the adjudicating authority of this order. Dy. Commissioner is therefore functioning merely as administrative authority rather than a quasi judicial authority. This indifference will render the whole process futile, because it is pre-judged, based on administration report by the jurisdictional Range Officer and not on his own application or analysis of the facts of the claim under consideration - I am constrained to remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority, with specific instructions to grant an opportunity to the appellant to produce all the necessary documents in support of their contention that duty liability has not been passed on to its customers. The said authority will also give reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant and pass a reasoned and speaking order based on the facts and documents and proof adduced by the appellant during the course of proceedings - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Refund claim credited to Consumer Welfare Fund without proper justification; Adequacy of proof regarding excess duty not passed on to customers; Infirmities in adjudication order; Adjudicating authority's role; Remand for further proceedings.

The appeal was filed against the order sanctioning a refund claim and crediting the refunded amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund under Rule 7 (6) of Central Excise Rules, 2004. The appellant argued that although the refund claim was found in order, it was ordered to be credited to the Fund without proper justification. On the other hand, the respondent contended that the appellant had not provided sufficient proof to show that the excess duty had not been passed on to their customers.

The Tribunal noted that the adjudication order had several infirmities. It observed that the adjudicating authority had merely endorsed the report of the jurisdictional Range Officer without conducting an independent analysis. This raised concerns about the authority's role, indicating a lack of quasi-judicial approach. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a thorough examination of the facts and documents by the adjudicating authority.

In light of the deficiencies in the adjudication process, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority. Specific instructions were given to allow the appellant to produce all necessary documents supporting their claim that the duty liability had not been passed on to customers. The authority was directed to provide a fair hearing to the appellant and to issue a reasoned order based on the evidence presented. A deadline of 31.03.2017 was set for the completion of the adjudication proceedings.