2018 (3) TMI 1543 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - input services - renting of immovable property service - insurance service - outward octroi - Customs House Agent charges - Xerox machine and printing machine - appellant filed a refund claim on the ground that they are eligible for cenvat credit in respect of the services - Held that - appellant have paid the interest and penalty and requested for waiver of SCN. This act of the appellant closed the entire proceedings. Thereafter, neither the department can issue any SCN nor the assessee can change their stand for the reason that the department has no opportunity to issue any further SCN. In the present case, the appellant has opted for the provision of Section 11A(6) (7). Therefore the proceedings stand concluded and no grievance can be raised on behalf of either side. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of credit for certain input services.
2. Rejection of refund claim based on the appellant's prior actions.
3. Interpretation of Section 11A(6) & (7) of the Central Excise Act.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding the availment of credit for specific input services by the appellant's excise unit. The objection was raised during an audit, questioning the admissibility of credit for services like renting of immovable property, insurance service, outward octroi, Customs House Agent charges, Xerox machine, and printing machine. The appellant paid the entire cenvat credit amount for these services, along with interest and penalty, upon the audit objection. Subsequently, they sought a refund, claiming eligibility for the credit. However, both lower authorities rejected the refund claim, citing the appellant's prior payment and waiver of a show cause notice as reasons for the rejection.

2. During the proceedings, no representation was made on behalf of the appellant. The Assistant Commissioner representing the Revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order. It was argued that once the appellant had paid the duty, interest, and penalty, and waived the show cause notice, the department could not issue any further notice. Therefore, the issue was considered final based on the appellant's actions. Consequently, the rejection of the refund by the lower authorities was deemed correct and lawful.

3. Upon careful examination of the submissions and records, the Member (Judicial) referred to Section 11A(6) & (7) of the Central Excise Act. This statutory provision stipulates that if a person liable to duty pays the duty, interest, and penalty before the issuance of a show cause notice and informs the Central Excise Officer in writing, no further notice shall be served. The proceedings related to the duty payment are considered concluded. In the present case, the appellant availed themselves of the provisions under Section 11A(6) & (7), leading to the conclusion of the proceedings. As a result, the Member (Judicial) found no fault in the impugned order and upheld it, dismissing the appeal accordingly.

In conclusion, the judgment focused on the legal implications of the appellant's prior actions in relation to the refund claim and the application of Section 11A(6) & (7) of the Central Excise Act to determine the finality of the proceedings.