2022 (3) TMI 1161 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - rejection on the ground of time limitation - periods April 2013 to June 2013 and July 2013 to September 2013 - HELD THAT - The Revenue having accepted the directions of this Bench, has to adhere to the same and the said directions cannot be ignored or diluted indirectly by the authorities. This Bench in its Final Order in AUTOFIT CAR INTERIORS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX CENTRAL EXCISE, COCHIN 2019 (5) TMI 211 - CESTAT BANGALORE had clearly held that the refund claim filed by the appellant was within the period of limitation and thus the appeal of the appellant came to be allowed with consequential relief of interest on delayed refund as per the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2011 (10) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT . The authorities have erred in rejecting the refund especially when the order of this Bench has become final. This is a clear case of judicial indiscipline and contrary to the prevalent judicial hierarchical system, which cannot be sustained. The adjudicating authority is directed to grant full refund in terms of the directions of this Bench (supra) with consequential relief if any, including interest under Section 11BB ibid - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against rejection of refund claim
- Calculation of interest on refund amount
- Compliance with directions of the appellate authority

Analysis:
1. Appeal against rejection of refund claim:
The appellant filed an appeal challenging the rejection of its refund claim by the adjudicating authority. The First Appellate Authority directed the adjudicating authority to process the refund after determining that the appellant was entitled to the refund as claimed. Subsequently, a consequential Order-in-Original was passed sanctioning a partial refund for specific quarters, rejecting the refund claims for other periods on grounds of limitation. The appellant appealed against this order, and the Bench ordered that the date of filing the original refund application should be considered for limitation purposes, resulting in the appellant's entire claim being held within the limitation period. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief of interest.

2. Calculation of interest on refund amount:
The appellant also appealed against a partial refund sanctioned by the adjudicating authority, arguing that the directions of the Bench were not fully followed, resulting in an amount still remaining with the Revenue. The appellant contested the rejection of a specific amount on new grounds not previously raised in any notices or orders. The First Appellate Authority directed the adjudicating authority to recalculate the interest from the date of the refund application receipt and to reassess the refund and interest for a specific quarter. The appellant challenged this direction in the present appeal.

3. Compliance with directions of the appellate authority:
After hearing both parties, the Judicial Member noted that the Revenue had accepted the directions of the Bench in a previous order, emphasizing that the authorities must adhere to these directions without deviation. The Member found that the rejection of the refund by the authorities, despite the previous order of the Bench, amounted to judicial indiscipline and was contrary to the hierarchical judicial system. As a result, the impugned order was set aside, directing the adjudicating authority to grant full refund as per the Bench's directions, including any consequential relief and interest as per the relevant provisions.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of appeal against refund rejection, calculation of interest on the refund amount, and compliance with the directions of the appellate authority, ensuring that the appellant's entitlement to the refund within the limitation period was upheld, and directing the authorities to adhere to the appellate decisions without deviation.