2017 (2) TMI 984 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - during the pendency of investigation and proceedings appellant had deposited ₹ 8,36,185/- and ₹ 1.5 crore and they were in the form of Revenue deposit and since they were not adjudged as duty through the proceedings, the provisions of Section 11B and Rule 233B of Central Excise Rules, 1944 were not applicable and requested to allow refund of said amounts. Held that - the amounts, which are deposited during the pendency of investigation and proceedings, if the same are not adjudged as duty fine or penalty then the amount that is not adjudged as duty, fine and penalty is to be treated as Revenue deposit and the provisions of refund of duty shall not be applicable to the same. The amount which has been adjudged is as per the authority of law and the amount which is in excess of the adjudged amount if retained that such retention of said amount shall be without authority of law and Article 365 of Constitution of India has not authorized Revenue to retain such amount - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Issues involved:
1. Claim for refund of excise duty payments filed by M/s Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd.
2. Application of Rule 233-B of Central Excise Rules, 1944 to the refund claim.
3. Time bar limitation on the refund claim.
4. Retention of amounts deposited during investigation and proceedings.
5. Enforcement and refund of a bank guarantee.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appellant, M/s Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd., filed a claim for refund of excise duty payments totaling &8377; 1,80,36,185. The claim was related to payments made through PLA entry, TR-6 Challan, and as a pre-deposit against a possible duty demand. The Revenue contended that procedural requirements under Rule 233-B were not followed, leading to the claim being treated as a payment without protest. The Original Authority rejected parts of the claim as hit by time bar and not covered by Rule 233B. The appellant appealed to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the rejection. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the refund of specific amounts with interest.

2. The grounds of appeal included the argument that the amounts deposited were pre-deposits during proceedings, thus not subject to time bar limitations. The appellant contended that Rule 233B did not apply to post-clearance deposits. The Tribunal considered the appellant's submissions and previous rulings, holding that amounts deposited during proceedings not adjudged as duty, fine, or penalty should be treated as Revenue deposits. The Tribunal allowed the refund of the excess amount deposited, reduced by the adjudged penalty, and directed the Original Authority to refund the specific amounts with interest.

3. The appellant had deposited amounts during investigations and proceedings, including a sum towards Central Excise duty. The Tribunal noted that if such amounts were not adjudged as duty, fine, or penalty, they should be treated as Revenue deposits. The Tribunal emphasized that the retention of excess amounts not adjudged as duty was without legal authority. In this case, the penalty was reduced, and the Tribunal allowed the recovery of a specific amount from the deposit, directing the refund of the remaining amounts with interest.

4. The Tribunal did not address the issue of the bank guarantee in the appeal as it was not part of the impugned orders. The Tribunal focused on the refund of specific amounts related to the excise duty payments and the application of legal principles regarding Revenue deposits and adjudged penalties. The appeal was allowed based on the findings related to the refund of excess amounts deposited during the proceedings.

5. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by M/s Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. regarding the refund of excise duty payments, emphasizing the treatment of amounts deposited during proceedings, the application of Rule 233B, and the time bar limitations. The decision highlighted the legal principles governing Revenue deposits and directed the refund of specific amounts with interest, excluding the bank guarantee issue from the scope of the appeal.

← Previous Next →