2017 (6) TMI 572 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - benefit of N/N. 175/86 - Held that - the observation that the appellants are entitled to exemption under the N/N. 175/86 in Order-in-Original No. 27/2001 dated 29.11.2001 has to be treated as obiter dictum, which has no binding value. The appellants have filed the second mentioned refund claim as an aftermath of the said Order-in-Original. Therefore, consequential relief claimed by the appellants on the basis of such Order-in-Original No. 27/2001 dated 29.11.2001 (for the period from 1.4.86 to 29.2.86) is not sustainable in law are flawed and not supported by law - refund withheld - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of goods for Central Excise duty, rejection of refund claims, applicability of previous decisions, binding effect of orders, consideration of change in Tribunal decisions.

Classification of Goods for Central Excise Duty:
The appellants manufactured various materials and filed a fresh classification list under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Department issued show cause notices proposing demands of Central Excise differential duty. After adjudication, the original authority dropped further proceedings initiated in the show cause notices. Subsequently, refund claims were filed by the appellants for duty paid on goods cleared during different periods. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claims, leading to appeals and remand to Deputy Commissioner. The issue revolved around the excisability of the manufactured goods and the applicability of exemptions under relevant notifications.

Rejection of Refund Claims and Applicability of Previous Decisions:
The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter emphasizing the finality of decisions and the principle of res judicata. The Deputy Commissioner, in remand proceedings, again rejected the refund claims. The appellants argued that the Order-in-Original not appealed by the Department treated the goods as non-excisable, thus binding the Department. However, the Department contended that the Tribunal's decision upholding dutiability of the goods should prevail, as the Assistant Commissioner did not follow the Tribunal's order dated 18.4.1991. The issue centered on the proper consideration of previous decisions and their impact on the refund claims.

Binding Effect of Orders and Consideration of Change in Tribunal Decisions:
The Tribunal analyzed the failure to follow the Tribunal's decision dated 18.4.1991 and the reliance on a subsequent decision of CESTAT, Bangalore Bench. The Tribunal noted that the Department did not appeal the Order-in-Original dated 29.11.2011, making it final and binding. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellants were entitled to the refund amounts for specific periods based on the finality of the Assistant Commissioner's order. The Tribunal set aside the rejection of refund claims for certain amounts while upholding the rejection for one specific claim that the appellants conceded. The judgment highlighted the importance of following binding decisions and considering changes in Tribunal decisions for assessing refund claims.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, granting refund of specific amounts based on the finality of previous orders and the failure to appeal by the Department. The judgment emphasized the binding effect of decisions and the need to consider changes in Tribunal decisions while determining the eligibility for refund claims.