2020 (5) TMI 472 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of CENVAT Credit - while entertaining the refund claim of the appellant, various adjustments were required to be done against various demand and rebate claim filed by the appellant - HELD THAT - While entertaining the refund claim, the adjudicating authority has observed that refund claim of ₹ 4,97,809/- has been withdrawn by the appellant being inadmissible. But, no finding has been given by the adjudicating authority, how this calculation has been arrived at. In view of this, the adjudicating authority is required to provide the details of admissible refund claim sought by the appellant of ₹ 4,97,809/-. Therefore, the impugned order qua rejecting the refund claim of ₹ 4,97,809/- on the ground that the same is not admissible and withdrawn is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority. The adjudicating authority is required to give details of the admissible and not admissible refund alongwith co-relation sheet. The appellant is directed to produce the order of this Tribunal before the concerned Assistant Commissioner who within a period of seven days of receipt of this order shall quantify the actual amount of refund - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Admissibility of refund claim of ?4,97,809/- to the appellant.
2. Lack of detailed explanation by the adjudicating authority regarding the inadmissibility of the refund claim.
3. Appeal challenging the rejection of a part of the refund claim by the Adjudicating Authority.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in tyre manufacturing, had availed cenvat credit during a specific period, which was initially denied but later deemed admissible by the Tribunal in a previous order. Subsequently, the appellant filed a refund claim of ?7,51,209/-, out of which the Adjudicating Authority disallowed ?4,97,809/- citing inadmissibility without providing a detailed explanation. The Commissioner (Appeals) deemed the appeal premature due to pending demands and rebates. Upon review, the Tribunal found the lack of explanation by the Adjudicating Authority regarding the disallowed amount. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the rejection of the refund claim and remanded the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority for a detailed assessment of admissible and inadmissible amounts with a correlation sheet.

The Tribunal directed the appellant to present the Tribunal's order to the Assistant Commissioner, who was instructed to quantify the actual refund amount within seven days and complete the assessment within one month. The Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the case for a proper determination of the admissible refund claim, emphasizing the need for a detailed explanation and cooperation between the appellant and the adjudicating authority.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision focused on the lack of clarity in the Adjudicating Authority's reasoning for disallowing a portion of the refund claim, leading to a remand for a comprehensive assessment and quantification of the admissible refund amount. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of detailed explanations and cooperation to facilitate a fair and accurate determination of the refund claim.