2015 (4) TMI 72 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Dismissal of Revision Application for Refund of Deemed Credit Upheld by Central Government

The Revision Application by M/s Makharia Synthetics, seeking refund of unutilized deemed credit, was dismissed by the Central Government. The application ... Denial of refund claim - Unutilized CENVAT Credit - Notification No. 29/96 CE(NT) dated 03.09.96/96 - applicant appears to have not maintained any register for deemed credit of availed in respect of exported gods and further that they were eligible for deemed credit of availed in respect of exported goods and further that they were eligible for deemed credit of 50% of duty payable, however, they claim for 60% of it - Held that:- applicants has initially preferred appeal before tribunal against impugned Order-in-Appeal. Tribunal rejected the appeal of applicant on merit vide order dated 31.03.2006 Order-in-Appeal cannot be agitated before Government of India. This is clear violation of judicial principles and the applicant has misused the provisions of law by filing this revision application when their appeal is already rejected by Hon'ble CESTAT on merit. - Moreover issue involved in the case is of refund of unutilized cenvat credit which is not covered under section 35EE read with first proviso to section 35B(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944. So no revision application is maintainable before Central Government against impugned Order-in-appeal. - revision application stands dismissed as non-maintainable under section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944. - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:1. Refund claim for deemed credit unutilized.2. Rejection of refund claim by lower authorities.3. Appeal filed before Commissioner (Appeals) and CESTAT.4. Revision application filed before Central Government.5. Interpretation of Notification No. 29/1996-CE(NT).6. Application of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.7. Judicial principles and misuse of provisions of law.8. Maintainability of revision application before Central Government.Analysis:The case involved a Revision Application by M/s Makharia Synthetics against the rejection of their refund claim for unutilized deemed credit. The applicant exported final products using duty paid raw materials and sought refund under Rule 57F(13) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, citing Notification No. 29/1996-CE(NT). The applicant argued that the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 should not apply as the deemed credit was not equal to duty paid. They also referenced a similar case from the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat. The Central Government noted that the lower authorities rejected the refund claim based on the applicant's failure to maintain a register for deemed credit and discrepancies in the claimed percentage of duty payable. The applicant's appeal to CESTAT was rejected on merit, and the Revision Application was filed after a significant delay.The Central Government found that the Revision Application was not maintainable as the applicant had already appealed before CESTAT, and the issue of refund of unutilized cenvat credit was not covered under the relevant sections of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for a revision application before the Central Government. The Central Government emphasized that the revision application should have been filed within three months of receiving the Order-in-Appeal, and any delay beyond that could not be condoned. Therefore, the Revision Application was dismissed as non-maintainable under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944.In conclusion, the Central Government dismissed the Revision Application by M/s Makharia Synthetics as it was filed after the stipulated time period and was not maintainable under the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The decision highlighted the importance of adhering to the specified timelines for filing revision applications and the limitations on revisiting judgments already decided by appellate authorities.