2019 (10) TMI 1426 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Upholds Refund Rejection Due to Failure to Challenge Commissioner's Decision

Mid India Power And Steel Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Rajkot

The Tribunal upheld the decision rejecting refund claims for October and November 2008 as the appellant did not challenge the original rejection before ... Refund claim - rejection of refund request of the appellant on the ground that against the order-in-original rejecting the refunds, the appellant had not filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute for the fact that, in respect of original rejection of refund claims, the appellant did not challenge the adjudication order before the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, the first adjudication attained finality by not challenging the same. The appellant, on the basis of order of the Commissioner (Appeals), which was in favour of the appellant cannot challenge before whom the matter of other claim relief in other case, where the rejection of refund order was not challenged. Since the appellant have not challenged the rejection order passed by the Adjudicating Authority, the said order attained finality according to which the refund stand rejected and the same cannot be given to the appellant - Appeal dismissed. Issues:- Appeal against rejection of refund claims- Finality of adjudication order- Entitlement to refund based on previous decisionsAnalysis:The case involved the rejection of six refund claims by the Adjudicating Authority, with subsequent appeals filed by the appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed refunds for claims from June 2008 to September 2008, but rejected claims for October and November 2008. The appellant did not appeal the rejection of the latter claims, seeking refund based on the allowed claims. The Adjudicating Authority refused, stating that the appellant did not appeal the rejection of the claims. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the present appeal.The appellant argued that since four refund claims were allowed, they should be entitled to refunds for the remaining two claims as well. The Revenue, represented by the Learned Superintendent, relied on a Supreme Court decision to support the rejection of the claims based on the finality of the adjudication order.Upon review, the Tribunal found that the appellant did not challenge the original rejection of refund claims before the Commissioner (Appeals), making the first adjudication final. Citing the Supreme Court decision, the Tribunal reiterated that without challenging the rejection order, a refund cannot be claimed. Therefore, as the appellant did not challenge the rejection order for the claims in question, the refunds were deemed rejected, and the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appeal.