2019 (12) TMI 472 - HC - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - Clandestine removal - refund of duty - Assessee states that in compliance of fresh order passed by the learned Tribunal the amount of claimed refund already stands sanctioned by the Department vide order dated 31.07.2019 passed by the Adjudicating Authority. Hence it is claimed by the respondent- assessee that the present appeal would not survive in the facts of the case. In response counsel for the appellant submits that the department is in process of filing an appeal against the fresh order dated 15.05.2019 passed by the Tribunal. HELD THAT - It is not disputed that nothing more survives in this appeal - the appeal is disposed of having been rendered infructuous.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the impugned Final Order dated 30.08.2018 is perverse, arbitrary, and illegal?
2. Whether the Tribunal erred in relying on a judgment by the High Court of Delhi?
3. Is the assessee entitled to a refund of duty deposited during adjudication proceedings?
4. Whether the impugned order is against the settled position of law?
5. Whether the impugned order is based on surmises and conjectures?

Analysis:
1. The case involved a manufacturing company engaged in producing Pan Masala, Khaini, Gutka etc. The Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI) found suppression of production and clandestine removal of products during a search in 2007. A Show Cause Notice was issued in 2009, leading to a demand of ?13,41,65,685. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed this demand in 2011.
2. The respondent filed an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, which remanded the matter for fresh adjudication in 2016. Subsequently, the respondent sought a refund of ?8,15,34,612 deposited during search proceedings. The Adjudicating Authority and the First Appellate Authority rejected the refund application.
3. The Tribunal, in its order dated 30.08.2018, directed the Adjudicating Authority to refund the claimed amount within three weeks. However, during the hearing, it was revealed that a fresh order in favor of the Revenue was passed in 2019. The Tribunal then allowed the appeal in favor of the respondent- assessee.
4. The respondent claimed that the refund had already been sanctioned by the Department in compliance with the Tribunal's fresh order. The appellant's counsel mentioned the department's intention to appeal the Tribunal's 2019 order but acknowledged that nothing further remained in the present appeal.
5. Considering the developments, the court disposed of the appeal as it had become infructuous due to the subsequent legal proceedings and the refund already being processed by the Department.