2018 (1) TMI 296 - AT - Central Excise

Classification - finalization of provisional assessment - amount due adjusted aganst the rebate claim, as appellant did not appropriate the same - whether appropriation of ₹ 11,03,247/- by the Revenue against the sanctioned rebate is correct or otherwise? - Held that - There is no dispute of the fact that pursuant to the provisional assessment the appellant was directed to pay the differential duty of ₹ 19,62,547.16/- and the department encashed the bank guarantee of ₹ 8,59,300/-, the outstanding 11,03,247/- which was pending and not paid by the appellant inspite of repeated reminders has been finally appropriated against the rebate claim - the appellant had failed to establish that the amount appropriated is not due to the Revenue - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Appropriation of outstanding amount against rebate claim

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise and Customs regarding the appropriation of an outstanding amount against a rebate claim. The appellant was directed to execute a bond and bank guarantee on the differential duty pending finalization of assessment. The assessment was finalized by the Assistant Commissioner, and the appellant was directed to pay an amount which was later adjusted against the rebate claim by the department. The appellant contended that the demand notice issued for recovery of the amount was time-barred, making the appropriation of the outstanding amount against the rebate unlawful.

The appellant argued that the demand notice issued for recovery of the amount was held to be time-barred by the Commissioner, hence the appropriation of the outstanding amount against the rebate was illegal. On the other hand, the Revenue submitted that the amount was appropriated after the appellant failed to discharge it, and there was no irregularity in the process as per the Supreme Court ruling. The Commissioner had dropped the proceeding initiated for recovery of the differential duty as the provisional assessment became final.

The main issue to be determined was the correctness of the appropriation of the outstanding amount against the rebate claim. The Ld. Commissioner observed that the amount due to the government arose from the finalization of provisional assessments, and the appellant failed to pay the outstanding amount despite repeated reminders. The Adjudicating Authority sanctioned rebate claims but appropriated the amount against the outstanding dues, which the appellant contested. The Ld. Commissioner upheld the appropriation, stating that the appellant failed to prove that the amount was not due to the Revenue. Consequently, the impugned order was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.