2004 (8) TMI 439 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal upholds refund claim as deposit under Central Excise Act, Revenue's appeal dismissed

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NASIK Versus SIEMENS LTD.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the decision to allow the refund claim made by the Respondents. The Tribunal held that the payments ... Refund - Consequential refund Issues: Classification of programmable Logic Controllers (PLC) under Central Excise Tariff Act, differential duty demand, refund claim, appeal against classification, applicability of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, refund of deposit, merit of Revenue's appeal.The judgment revolves around the classification of programmable Logic Controllers (PLC) under the Central Excise Tariff Act, a differential duty demand, a refund claim, and appeals against classification. Initially, the Assistant Commissioner classified PLC under Chapter No. 85.37, resulting in a higher duty demand, which the assessee disputed. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the initial order and remanded the matter for reconsideration. Subsequently, the Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand, leading to a refund claim and further appeals by the Respondents against the classification and rejection of the refund claim. The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter for reconsideration and allowed the refund claim, prompting the Revenue to appeal against the refund decision.Regarding the refund claim, the Tribunal analyzed the nature of the payment made by the assessee under protest. The Tribunal noted that the payment was made to enable the appellant to file an appeal and was akin to a deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the payments were not duty payments, and the bar of Section 11B for consequent refund did not apply. The Tribunal also referenced a specific order of the Board regarding the return of such deposits with the filing of a refund application.The Tribunal further discussed the applicability of a specific case cited by the Departmental Representative (DR) and concluded that the refunds in question were indeed returns of deposits made under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. As a result, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal and determined that it should be dismissed. Therefore, the Tribunal ordered the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal, affirming the decision to allow the refund claim made by the Respondents.