2018 (1) TMI 694 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - power to review - Held that - it is a well settled legal principle that a quasi- judicial authority cannot review its own order - reliance placed in the case of MADRAS RUBBER FACTORY LTD. Versus ASSISTANT COLLR. OF C. EX., MADRAS 1981 (1) TMI 68 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS - the impugned order passed by the lower authority is illegal and incorrect - refund allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute over payment of duty on valuation.
2. Rejection of refund claims by Adjudicating Authority.
3. Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside Adjudication Orders and allowing appeals by the assessee.
4. Revenue filing appeals against the decisions.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding the payment of duty on valuation by the assessee, engaged in the manufacture of branded chewing tobacco and quiwam. The Adjudicating Authority rejected refund claims of certain amounts, which were then appealed by the assessee. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Adjudication Orders and allowed the appeals, leading to the Revenue filing further appeals against these decisions.

2. In the first appeal (E/293/2008), the Assistant Commissioner had initially ruled in favor of the assessee for a refund of a specific amount, but later, in a subsequent order, adjusted this amount against a total demand raised in a Show Cause Notice. The Commissioner (Appeals) found this action to be impermissible, citing legal principles that quasi-judicial authorities cannot review their own orders. Referring to established legal precedents, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the impugned order and directed the refund to the appellant.

3. In the second appeal (E/295/2008), a similar situation arose where the Assistant Commissioner had initially held certain amounts to be refundable, but later rejected the refund claim in a subsequent order. The Commissioner (Appeals) once again invoked the principle that quasi-judicial authorities cannot review their own orders, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and granting the appellant the entitlement to a refund as per the law.

4. The judgment ultimately upheld the decisions of the Commissioner (Appeals), rejecting the appeals filed by the Revenue and disposing of the cross objections. The analysis of both appeals highlighted the importance of adhering to legal principles and established precedents in quasi-judicial proceedings, ensuring fairness and consistency in decision-making.