2016 (2) TMI 451 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal remands case for refund review, emphasizing fair process & preventing unjust state benefit.

M/s Automotive Coaches & Components Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-II

The Tribunal remanded the case to the Adjudicating authority for a detailed review of the refund of excess duty paid on 69 chassis. It emphasized the need ... Entitlement to refund claim - Held that:- It is elementary principle of jurisprudence that the duty if any, paid excessively should not enrich the State at the cost of the citizen. Therefore, the Adjudicating authority is directed to examine whether any duty was paid in excess of the duty actually payable in respect of 69 chassis as pleaded by learned counsel. If there is any excess payment that should not be retained with the State but should be refunded to the appellant. It is pertinent to mention that guidelines for grant of refund is laid down apex court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Vs Union of India (1996 (12) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ). The authority following such guidelines shall order refund, if any, admissible in accordance with law. The authority shall therefore grant fair opportunity of hearing to the appellant and examining the evidence thoroughly shall pass appropriate order. Issues:1. Whether the appellate order adequately examined the reasons for the refund of excess duty in respect of 69 chassis.2. Whether the duty paid on 69 chassis over and above the liability requires further scrutiny.3. Whether the appellant lost the right to refund after the Tribunal's order.4. Whether the Adjudicating authority should examine if any duty was paid in excess and order a refund accordingly.Analysis:Issue 1:The appellant's counsel argued that the appellate order did not sufficiently address why the refund for 69 chassis arose. Referring to a previous Tribunal order, the counsel emphasized the duty to refund excess duty paid, subject to legal provisions. The Adjudicating authority was criticized for disregarding the Tribunal's decision. The appellate authority's denial of refund based on the appellant's previous appearance before the Tribunal was contested.Issue 2:It was contended that duty paid on 69 chassis, beyond the liability, necessitates a detailed examination with the appellant's assistance. The appellant sought scrutiny of any excess payment made.Issue 3:The Revenue contended that the appellate commissioner's decision was appropriate, asserting that the appellant forfeited the right to refund after the Tribunal's order. The argument was made that no refund situation arose post the Tribunal's judgment.Issue 4:After hearing both sides and reviewing the records, the Tribunal noted the absence of reasons in the impugned order for the refund. Referring to the Tribunal's previous order, the Tribunal directed the Adjudicating authority to determine if any duty was overpaid concerning the 69 chassis. The Tribunal emphasized that excess payments should not benefit the State unjustly and ordered a thorough examination to ensure any excess duty paid is refunded to the appellant in accordance with legal provisions and guidelines.In conclusion, the matter was remanded to the Adjudicating authority for further examination and a fair opportunity for the appellant to present evidence, following the guidelines for refund laid down by the apex court.