2011 (4) TMI 1055 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Upholds Appellate Decision on Refund Claims under Central Excise Rules

The Tribunal upheld the lower appellate authority's decision, ruling in favor of the respondents in an appeal against the rejection of refund claims under ... Refund claims - claims were rejected as time barred - Revenue appeared before him and submitted that the assessee was not in a position to utilize the deemed credit and the deemed credit register was in the custody of the department – Held that:- Superintendent (Technical) of the department himself has admitted that the deemed credit has not been utilized by the respondents and extract showing evidence that the deemed credit is lying in their credit account is with the department itself, appeal of Revenue rejected Issues:Appeal against rejection of refund claims as time-barred under Central Excise Rules, 1944.Analysis:The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against the rejection of refund claims amounting to Rs.11,32,133 under Rule 57G/57F of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The respondents had their man-made fabrics processed by a manufacturer, and the refund claims were initially rejected as time-barred. However, on appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), the rejection was set aside. Subsequently, it was discovered that the manufacturer had not met certain conditions laid down under a specific notification, leading to the issuance of a show-cause notice and the rejection of the refund claims by the Deputy Commissioner. Upon further appeal, the adjudication order was set aside, prompting the Revenue to appeal the decision.During the proceedings, the Departmental Representative (DR) argued that the deemed credit had already been utilized for other clearances, contradicting the findings in the impugned order. The Tribunal examined the impugned order, noting that the lower appellate authority had thoroughly considered the issue. The Superintendent (Technical) appeared on behalf of the Revenue and confirmed that the respondents had not utilized the deemed credit, and the register was in the custody of the department. Consequently, the lower appellate authority concluded that the respondents were entitled to the refund claims and overturned the previous denial.In its judgment, the Tribunal highlighted the discrepancy in the DR's argument, as the Superintendent had acknowledged that the deemed credit remained unused by the respondents, with evidence of the credit being held by the department. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, finding no fault in it and dismissing the Revenue's appeal on the grounds of lack of merit.