2014 (11) TMI 668 - HC - Central Excise

Appeals dismissed as respondent repaid refunded amount, rendering them moot.

COMMR. OF C. EX., TIRUNELVELI Versus TUTICORIN ALKALI CHEM. & FERTILIZERS LTD.

The Court found the appeals to be infructuous and disposed of them without costs, as the respondent had repaid the refunded amount to the Department after ... Denial of refund claim - Whether the respondent is entitled to get the amounts mentioned in the refund orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner - Held that:- On the side of the respondent, a letter addressed to the Department has been submitted wherein, it has been clearly stated that as per the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the entire refunded amount has been paid to the Department. Since the entire refunded amount has been paid to the Department by the respondent, the reliefs sought for in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have become infructuous. Since the reliefs claimed in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have become infructuous, the question involved in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals need not be decided - Appeals disposed of. Issues:Entitlement to refund on the basis of manufacturing process.Analysis:The case involved Civil Miscellaneous Appeals against final orders passed in 2007 related to a manufacturing process using HDBE sacs. The respondent failed to pay excess amounts for the sacs initially but later received refunds from the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) set aside these refund orders, leading to appeals filed by the respondent before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal overturned the Commissioner's decision, prompting the Commissioner to file these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals.The appellant argued that the respondent was not entitled to the refund, claiming errors in the Assistant Commissioner's refund orders. The Commissioner of Appeals was supported for setting aside the refunds, and it was contended that the Tribunal erred in its decision. The appellant stressed that issuing a 11A notice was unnecessary, and the Tribunal failed to consider legal aspects and Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002.On the other hand, the respondent contended that they had repaid the refunded amount to the Department after the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, rendering the appeals moot. The central issue was whether the respondent was entitled to the refunded amounts based on the Assistant Commissioner's orders, which were subsequently set aside by higher authorities.A crucial document submitted by the respondent confirmed the repayment of the refunded amount to the Department, making the relief sought in the appeals irrelevant. Consequently, the Court found the appeals to be infructuous and disposed of them without costs. The judgment highlighted the resolution of the case based on the respondent's repayment, rendering the appeals moot and leading to their disposal.