2024 (6) TMI 1103 - AT - Central Excise

Rejection of sanction of refund - duty paid in regard to paper wrapper which was later set aside by the order of Commissioner (Appeals) - HELD THAT - The said issue has attained finality when the Tribunal dismissed the department appeal by Final order 2019 (12) TMI 470 - CESTAT CHENNAI . The Commissioner (Appeals) has observed in the order impugned herein that the order of Tribunal would be only of persuasive value which is totally erroneous. The decision passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) when appealed before the Tribunal and having decided by passing Final order has become final. In such circumstances, the impugned order interfering with the classification and the demand of duty which has been already decided in favour of assessee cannot be disturbed. There are no grounds to reject the refund claim sanctioned by the original authority. The impugned order set aside. The order passed by the original authority is restored - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Central excise duty demand on paper wrapper, paper tag, and paper trays.
2. Appeal against duty demand confirmation.
3. Refund application for duty paid on paper wrapper.
4. Appeal against the sanctioning of the refund.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing paper articles falling under CETA 1985, faced a central excise duty demand for contravention of Rule 4, 6, and 8 of Central Excise Rules 2004. The original authority confirmed the duty demand of Rs.20,76,492 for paper tag and paper trays, which was challenged by the appellant in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the duty demand for paper wrapper but confirmed it for paper tag and paper trays. Both the department and the assessee filed appeals before the Tribunal against this decision.

3. The Tribunal, in its Final Order, dated 18.11.2019, set aside the demand for paper tag and paper plates due to limitation. The department's appeal was dismissed on monetary grounds.

4. Meanwhile, the appellant filed a refund application for the duty paid on the paper wrapper, which was earlier set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals). The refund was sanctioned by the refund authority, with Rs.5,79,308 refunded, part as cash and part as CENVAT Credit.

5. The department appealed the refund sanction before the Commissioner (Appeals), who set aside the refund sanction, holding the appellant liable to pay duty on the paper wrapper. The appellant challenged this decision before the Tribunal.

6. The Tribunal considered the issue of whether the Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting the refund sanction was sustainable. It noted that the issue of duty on the paper wrapper had attained finality with the Tribunal's previous decision, and the impugned order interfering with the classification and duty demand was erroneous.

7. The Tribunal found no grounds to reject the refund claim sanctioned by the original authority and set aside the impugned order, restoring the original authority's decision. The appeal was allowed with consequential reliefs, if any.