Voluntary duty payment on correct assessable value defeats refund claim and makes a show cause notice unnecessary.

Duty paid voluntarily, without protest, on clearance of capital goods was treated as non-refundable where the assessee sought depreciation-based relief under Rule 57S, but that rule was not in force for the relevant clearances. The applicable valuation provisions were treated as Rule 57AB(1) and Rule 3(4), read with Sections 4 and 4A, and the invoice value was accepted as the correct assessable value, so no depreciated value was required. Because the payment was voluntary and correctly discharged, a show cause notice under Section 11A was considered unnecessary and no breach of natural justice was found.

---

---

Issues: Whether duty paid on clearance of capital goods without protest was refundable on the basis of depreciation under Rule 57S of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944, and whether a show cause notice under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was required.

Analysis: The duty was found to have been paid against clearance of the capital goods without any protest. In such circumstances, the payment was treated as voluntary and the assessee could not succeed on the plea that the amount was deposited erroneously at the instance of the audit party. The claim based on Rule 57S was not accepted because the relevant clearances had taken place when that rule was not in force. The applicable provisions were treated as Rule 57AB(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001 or 2002, under which the duty was payable on the value determined under Section 4 or Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Since the invoice value was the correct assessable value and the duty had been correctly discharged, no depreciated value was required to be adopted. As the payment was voluntary and without protest, issuance of a show cause notice under Section 11A was held unnecessary and there was no breach of natural justice.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not maintainable and the rejection of refund was upheld. The appeal failed.

Final Conclusion: The order affirming the duty payment and rejecting refund was sustained, with no interference warranted in the appellate order.

Ratio Decidendi: Duty paid voluntarily and without protest on the correct assessable value does not warrant refund, and where the applicable valuation provisions govern the clearance, a claim based on an inapplicable depreciation rule cannot succeed.

---