2017 (12) TMI 1486 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - security deposit, for maintaining the godown, which was encashed by the Revenue and credited to the Government Account - Held that - there is no dispute about the fact that at the time of further extension of the permission to maintain an outside godown, a fresh security was given by the assessee and as such the earlier security encashed by the Revenue was to be refunded to them - It is also seen that the credit entry was made by the appellant in their PLA under intimation to the Revenue. Such intimation can be deemed to be a claim for refund and if the Revenue was not happy with the same, they could have initiated the proceedings at that point of time itself - denial of refund not justified - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Extension of permission for maintaining a godown outside factory premises for storing non-duty paid sugar.
2. Encashment of security by Revenue and subsequent refund claim by the appellant.
3. Dispute regarding re-credit taken by the appellant instead of applying for a refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in sugar manufacturing, had a godown outside their factory premises for storing non-duty paid sugar with permission from the Commissioner. The Commissioner rejected an extension request, leading to encashment of security by the Revenue. Subsequently, another representation was accepted, granting an extension with a fresh security given by the appellant.

2. The appellant became entitled to a refund after the extension was granted, as the earlier security encashed by the Revenue was to be refunded. The appellant took credit in their PLA after intimating the Central Excise Authorities, leading to proceedings for re-credit confirmation by the Revenue.

3. The dispute centered around the appellant taking re-credit suo-moto instead of applying for a refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Authorities below confirmed the demand based on this ground, despite the appellant's argument that the situation was revenue neutral due to the encashment of guarantees.

4. The Tribunal found that the appellant's act of intimating the Revenue about the credit entry in their PLA could be deemed as a claim for refund. The Tribunal criticized the Revenue's technical approach for denying the refund due to the appellant, especially considering the fresh security given during the extension period.

5. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and granting consequential relief to the appellant. The judgment emphasized that the Revenue should have initiated proceedings if they were not satisfied with the appellant's claim at the time of credit entry in their PLA.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD highlights the key issues, arguments presented, and the Tribunal's decision in favor of the appellant regarding the refund claim for encashed security.