9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 589X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... harat Raichandani, Advocate for the appellant Shri H.B. Negi, Authorised Representative (SDR) for the respondent Per: Ashok Jindal: The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order for denying their refund claim on the ground that the refund claim is hit by bar of unjust enrichment. The Revenue has also filed cross-objection in this appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are the manufacturer of animal feed supplements. They have classified their product under CHS 2302.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act attracting 'nil' rate of duty. The department was of the view that the said product is classifiable under CHS 2936.00 attracting Central Excise duty @ 15% basic and 5% SED. During the period 01/08/1988 to 01/11/1991 the appellant paid duty under protest classifying their product as 2936.00 as directed by the department and challenged the issue of classification. The matter reached before this Tribunal and this Tribunal by order No. 755-756/91 dated 07/10/1991 decided the classification in favour of the appellant i.e., CHS 2302.00. Consequently, the appellants filed the refund claim of the duty paid by them under protest. It is also on recor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red to go through the full facts of the case in detail and since the issue involved in this case is refund of Rs.1,30,71,334/-, it is emphasized once more that he should make proper efforts to evaluate the facts in detail and ascertain as to whether the prices have been increased or not. If the said prices have been increased, whether such increase in price should be attributable to the element of Excise duty only for which it is necessary to examine all the invoices during the relevant period." The appellants were also given direction to produce the relevant documents before the original adjudicating authority. In pursuance to the said order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 30/03/2001, again the matter was adjudicated by the adjudicating authority as per the directions and during the adjudication, the adjudicating authority has examined the case and it was observed that: "It is noticed that in most of the cases prices the prices have actually reduced during the period under consideration. Even where the prices were increased they are not attributable to the incidence of C. Excise duty. The date on which duties were imposed/increased do not coincide with the increase in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cating authority has gone beyond the directions which is not proper. He further submitted that the appellants have submitted Chartered Accountant's certificate duly certifying that duty element has not been recovered from the buyers and an affidavit of the Director of the appellant-company that duty has not been recovered from the buyers but the adjudicating authority as well as the lower appellate authority has not considered these submissions and passed the order without any reason. On merits also, he submitted that they have not recovered any duty which is very well shown to the authorities below by producing the invoices of previous period showing no increase in price, and which has been examined thoroughly and found no duty is received from the buyers, therefore, on merits also they are having a good case. He further submitted that the appellants are entitled for deduction of duty from their price-lists which has been held by this Tribunal in the case of Geep Industrial Syndicate Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad 1995 (80) ELT 341 (Tribunal). The appellants very well established from the records that appellants have not recovered any duty from their buyers, there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e by any court or superior authority the Assistant Collector had no option but to scrupulously follow the directions issued by the Appellate Collector, even if the view expressed by the Appellate Collector was contrary to the law declared by the Supreme Court. Wherever there is a hierarchy of courts or authorities, each court or authority is bound by the decision and directions of the higher authority or court. If the subordinate authority is left free to disregard and disobey the findings and directions of a higher authority or tribunal there will be complete indiscipline and the system on which such hierarchy of courts or authority is founded, would not be able to function effectively." 10. In this matter, we observe that the Assistant Commissioner while dealing with the refund claim in remand proceedings have not followed the directions of the Commissioner (Appeals) which cannot be appreciated. If the Assistant Collector would have passed the order following the directions of the Commissioner (Appeals), then this matter would not have traveled before this Tribunal. 11. We have seen that the refund relates to the years 1988-91 and we are running in 2011, the adjudicating auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
