2025 (2) TMI 798 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim of Excise Duty paid wrongly - alleged mistake in classification and payment - absence of a challenge to the assessment or self-assessment - maintainability of refund claims filed without challenging the initial assessment - HELD THAT - The appellant has produced on record number of documents cited supra viz. copy of PLA for the months of July 1999 to December 1999 evidencing payment of Excise Duty for the clearance affected from 15.07.1999 to 31.12.1999 photocopies of TR-6 Challans No.71 dated 01.07.1999 to No.198 dated 13.12.1999 vide which the Excise Duty was originally deposited during July 1999 to December 1999 list of invoices issued during July 1999 to December 1999 showing clearance of above consignment of imported SKO - The appellant has also produced certificate of Chartered Accountant who certified on the basis of books of accounts of the appellants duly certifying total payment of duty on same SKO Customs Duty cargo. In view of the plethora of judgments the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered the same and has come to the finding that the appellant has not been able to establish that double payment has been made. Once it has come on record that no Excise bonded SKO was pumped by any refinery during the year 1999 to 2000 in the pipeline which clearly shows that the Excise Duty paid by the appellant is by mistake which is liable to be refunded to the appellant. As regards the preliminary objections raised by the Revenue it is to be noted that this Tribunal in the case of M/s Shree Balaji Warehouse etc. has held that refund of service tax is maintainable in the absence of any challenge to assessment or self-assessment. As regards the preliminary objections raised by the Revenue it is to be noted that this Tribunal in the case of M/s Shree Balaji Warehouse etc. 2023 (9) TMI 1478 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH (LB) has held that refund of service tax is maintainable in the absence of any challenge to assessment or self-assessment. The said decision was followed by the Tribunal in the case of M/s Grand Prix Engineering Pvt. Ltd. 2023 (10) TMI 731 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH which was a case of refund under the Excise Act and it was held that refund claim would be maintainable in the absence of any challenge to assessment or self-assessment in appeal. Conclusion - i) Once it has come on record that no Excise bonded SKO was pumped by any refinery during the year 1999 to 2000 the excise duty paid was clearly a mistake. ii) Refund claims can be maintained without challenging the assessment if it is demonstrated that duties were paid erroneously. iii) Refund of the excise duty paid erroneously by the appellant is allowed. The impugned order is not sustainable in law - Appeal allowed.

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal issues considered in this judgment include:

Whether the appellant is entitled to a refund of the excise duty paid on Superior Kerosene Oil (SKO) due to an alleged mistake in classification and payment.
Whether the refund claim is maintainable in the absence of a challenge to the assessment or self-assessment.
The applicability of precedents regarding the maintainability of refund claims without challenging the initial assessment.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

1. Entitlement to Refund of Excise Duty

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The appellant argued that the excise duty was paid erroneously on SKO, which was not excise bonded during the disputed period. The legal framework involves the procedures for excise duty payment and refund under the Central Excise Act.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal examined the evidence provided by the appellant, including documentation showing that both excise and customs duties were paid on the same SKO consignment. The Tribunal noted that the appellant realized the mistake in December 1999 and promptly filed for a refund.
Key Evidence and Findings: The appellant submitted various documents, including a certificate from IOCL Kandla, invoices, bills of entry, and a Chartered Accountant's certificate, to demonstrate the double payment of duties.
Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal found that the appellant mistakenly paid excise duty on SKO, which was not excise bonded, and thus was entitled to a refund.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue's argument that the appellant did not provide sufficient evidence was rejected by the Tribunal, which found the appellant's documentation adequate.
Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the excise duty was paid in error and should be refunded to the appellant.

2. Maintainability of Refund Claim Without Challenging Assessment

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Tribunal considered the applicability of judgments such as ITC Ltd. vs. CCE and decisions from other cases like M/s Shree Balaji Warehouse and M/s Grand Prix Engineering.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal distinguished the present case from ITC Ltd., noting that the latter involved customs provisions, whereas the current case pertained to excise duty.
Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal referenced its own and other benches' decisions, which supported the maintainability of refund claims without challenging assessments.
Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principles from the cited cases to hold that the refund claim was maintainable without an appeal against the assessment.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue's reliance on ITC Ltd. and other cases was addressed by distinguishing the facts and legal issues involved.
Conclusions: The Tribunal held that the refund claim was maintainable, aligning with its previous decisions and those of other benches.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: The Tribunal emphasized that "once it has come on record that no Excise bonded SKO was pumped by any refinery during the year 1999 to 2000," the excise duty paid was clearly a mistake.
Core Principles Established: Refund claims can be maintained without challenging the assessment if it is demonstrated that duties were paid erroneously.
Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and directing a refund of the excise duty paid erroneously by the appellant.