2020 (11) TMI 795 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of Mistake - Refund of CENVAT Credit - Appellant Company has submitted that they have not received the refund order in question and the Revenue sought time but no proof has been provided by the Revenue with regard to service of communication of adjustment of refund amount and the same has been recorded by this Tribunal in the order itself - HELD THAT - The appellant has claimed that the amount of ₹ 18,28,984/- has been debited on various dates and also intimated to the department through various letters with regard to adjustment of the amount of ₹ 18,28,984/-. The said fact has not been controverted by the Revenue during the course of argument. Moreover, it has been recorded by the Tribunal that no show cause notice has not been issued to the appellant for appropriation of the said amount paid by the appellant. Further, in final order dated 29.01.2020, this Tribunal has taken on record the letter dated 10.08.2007 which is a reply to the letter dated 12.06.2007 demanding interest on the amount of ₹ 36,57,968/- for delayed/reversal or debited of the amount. The said fact clearly indicate that the appellant has reversed/deducted or adjusted a sum of ₹ 36,57,968/- which is the subject matter of the refund claim in hand. Further, it has been recorded by this Tribunal that no proof has been produced by the Revenue that the adjustment/rejection of amount in refund claim has been communicated to the appellant. In fact, the Revenue claimed that it is rejection of refund claim in question while entertaining the refund claim in 2005. The Refund claim in question was not the subject matter of the said refund claim which was entertained by the adjudicating authority while sanctioning the refund claim for the month of February, March and September, 2005. There is no mistake apparent on record while passing the order by this Tribunal on 29.01.2020, the Revenue seeks to review of the order passed by this Tribunal which is not permissible in law - the application for rectification of mistake deserves no merit - Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of mistake in the Final Order No. 60142 of 2020 dated 29.01.2020.

Analysis:
The Revenue filed an application seeking rectification of a mistake in the Final Order. The claim was based on the contention that certain written submissions made by the Ld. AR during the hearing were not adequately addressed by the Tribunal. The Revenue argued that the rejection of refund claims in question was justified due to the appellant's wrong availment of cenvat credit in the past. The Revenue further claimed that the rejection was based on proper reasoning and appellate orders. The Tribunal noted that the rejection was unrelated to the recovery or deduction of refund concerning wrongly availed credit of countervailing duty. The appellant's attempt to claim the rejected amount as a recovery of wrongly availed credit was not substantiated. The Tribunal found that the rejection of the refund claim was based on other grounds that were not challenged, making it ineligible for refund.

The appellant strongly opposed the rectification application, asserting that the Tribunal's order was self-explanatory. The appellant contended that the rejected amount from 2005, which was not challenged earlier, could not be contested now. The Tribunal observed that the appellant company's director claimed non-receipt of the refund order in question, and the Revenue failed to provide proof of communication regarding the adjustment of the refund amount.

Upon reviewing the order passed on 29.01.2020, the Tribunal found that it was issued after considering submissions from both sides. The appellant claimed to have debited a specific amount on various dates and informed the department about it through letters, which the Revenue did not dispute during arguments. The Tribunal noted the absence of a show cause notice issued to the appellant for the appropriation of the said amount. Additionally, the Tribunal highlighted that the appellant had reversed, deducted, or adjusted a substantial sum, which was the subject of the refund claim. The Tribunal found no proof of communication regarding the adjustment or rejection of the refund amount provided by the Revenue.

In conclusion, the Tribunal held that there was no apparent mistake in the order issued on 29.01.2020. The Tribunal emphasized that seeking a review of the order was impermissible in law. Therefore, the application for rectification of mistake was deemed meritless and rejected.