2018 (4) TMI 1022 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of accumulated CENVAT credit - appellant-assessee had conceded not to claim this amount from the department - Held that - dispute is 15 years old it would be better to close the issue - once having conceded that item N. 3 and 4 (of the table) needs decent burial appellant should not have exhumed the issue by filing the refund claim before the authorities - refund rightly rejected. Secondly it has to be noticed that before the Tribunal clearly stated that the issue involved in the amount of 42, 01 lakhs (serial No. 3 and 4) is contentious one and would require detailed arguments and consideration of various issues also in view of the time elapsed appellant s counsel has conceded that the issue as being not pressed rearguing the issue on the pretext of filing a refund claim would be incorrect on the part of the appellant. Thirdly these findings of the Tribunal in paragraph 15 has also attained finality in the hands of the apex Court. Hence seeking indulgence of the Tribunal for revisiting the issue once again is not in consonance with the settled law. Refund rightly rejected - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim filed by the appellant.
2. Interest claimed by the appellant.

Refund Claim:
The appellant filed two interconnected appeals against orders passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), LTU, Mumbai. The issue revolved around MODVAT credit claimed by the appellant. A previous Tribunal order summarized the issue in a table, concluding that the appellant was entitled to a refund of accumulated credit attributable to exported goods. Subsequently, the appellant filed a refund application, which was rejected by the adjudicating authority on the grounds that the appellant had conceded not to claim the amount. The first appellate authority also rejected the appeal. The appellant argued that the Tribunal's order confirmed their entitlement to the refund, which was upheld by the High Court and the Supreme Court. However, the Tribunal rejected the refund claim, stating that the impugned order was correct and legal.

Interest Claim:
The appellant also claimed interest, which was considered inconsequential as the main appeal seeking a refund was rejected. The Tribunal found both appeals to be devoid of merits and rejected them. The Tribunal emphasized that the issue had already attained finality, and revisiting it was not in line with settled law. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed, and the decision was pronounced on March 23, 2018.