2015 (10) TMI 1332 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal grants appeal for redemption fine refund, upholds rejection on time bar & lack of evidence

M/s. Husmun Enterprises Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Daman

The Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal solely regarding the refund of the redemption fine amount, granting consequential relief. The rejection of the ... Denial of refund claim of redemption fine - period of limitation - Held that:- Refund of ₹ 5,32,481/- was ordered to be taken as Cenvat credit as per Order-in-Appeal dated 29.12.1999 and unit was undertaking manufacture and clearance up to 19.9.2003. Appellant did not produce accounts of not taking credit during the period 29.12.1999 to 19.09.2003. In view of the above facts, first appellate authority has correctly rejected the appeal of the appellant with respect to refund of ₹ 5,32,481/-, as the appellant has also not produced any records with this appeal to the extent that no credit of ₹ 5,32,481/- was taken as a result of earlier favourable order passed by the first appellate authority. - so far as refund of ₹ 1,00,000/- redemption fine paid by the appellant is concerned, it is observed that the same is not a duty of excise to which the provisions Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 will be applicable. Accordingly, the time bar of one year or unjust-enrichment will not be applicable to refund of redemption fine paid by the appellant. - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues: Refund claim rejection based on time bar and non-submission of documents, rejection of adjournment request, failure to establish non-taking of CENVAT credit, time bar on redemption fine refund, applicability of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.Refund Claim Rejection: The appellant filed an appeal against the rejection of a refund claim by the Adjudicating authority, citing it as time-barred and due to non-submission of necessary documents. The Adjudicating authority upheld the rejection, stating that the appellant failed to produce records showing the non-taking of credit during a specific period. The first appellate authority correctly rejected the appeal as the appellant did not provide evidence to support their claim.Adjournment Request: The appellant's adjournment request was denied as it was noted that similar requests had been made on multiple previous occasions. Despite the appellant's advocate being engaged in another court matter, the request was rejected, and the case proceeded for hearing.Failure to Establish Non-Taking of CENVAT Credit: The Authorized Representative argued that the appellant failed to demonstrate that a specific credit amount was not taken as per an earlier appellate order. The appellant did not produce accounts to show the non-credit during the relevant period, leading to the rejection of the appeal regarding the refund amount.Time Bar on Redemption Fine Refund: The Tribunal observed that the redemption fine paid by the appellant was not considered a duty of excise, making the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 inapplicable. Consequently, the time bar of one year and the concept of unjust enrichment did not apply to the refund of the redemption fine. The Tribunal allowed the appeal for the refund of the redemption fine amount.Operative Part of the Order: The appeal of the appellant was allowed only concerning the refund of the redemption fine amount, with consequential relief granted. The Tribunal's decision highlighted the distinction between the refund of the redemption fine and the CENVAT credit amount, applying relevant legal provisions to each specific case.