Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 1444 - AT - Central ExciseRestrain from appropriation of the refund sanctioned to the appellant - Held that - The Order of this Bench implies that as on date, there is no Order or duty demand against the assessee and consequently, there can be no recovery proceedings - the Department Appeal shall be treated as infructuous since the matter is yet to be adjudicated - appeal dismissed as infructuous.
Issues:
Challenge to directions of Commissioner of Central Excise in restraining Revenue from appropriation of refund. Analysis: The appeal was filed by the Revenue challenging the directions of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) which restrained the Revenue from appropriating the refund sanctioned to the appellant. The initial refund application was returned as the duty was allegedly paid by another entity. However, after a thorough verification of records, the refund was sanctioned based on the Commissioner's Instruction. The adjudicating authority held that the claim for erroneous refund was in order, as the initial assessee code had become defunct and a new registration certificate was issued. The Range Officer reports also supported the claim, stating there was no unjust enrichment. The Order-in-Original sanctioned the refund but also appropriated the amount against arrears. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the appropriation order, noting administrative delays in processing the stay application. The matter was brought before the CESTAT Chennai, which directed a pre-deposit and remanded the case for de novo adjudication. As there was no current duty demand against the assessee, the Department's appeal was considered infructuous and dismissed. The Cross Objection filed by the assessee was also disposed of accordingly. This detailed analysis highlights the procedural history, the grounds for the appeal, the findings of the adjudicating authority and Commissioner (Appeals), the subsequent CESTAT Chennai directions, and the final dismissal of the Department's appeal due to lack of current duty demand against the assessee.
|