2016 (7) TMI 633 - AT - Central Excise

Appellate tribunal grants refund for VAT and bank interest, deeming payments as deposits, not duties.

M/s Jammu Pigments Ltd. Versus CCE & ST. Faridabad

The appellate tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order that denied a refund claim for miscellaneous income of VAT and ... Claim of refund - valuation - whether refund of VAT and interest received from the banks are not liable to be tax as duty of excise - refund claim was rejected on the ground that the duty was not paid under protest - Held that:- It is an admitted fact of this miscellaneous income by way of refund of VAT and interest received from the banks, the appellant is not liable to pay duty as these are not manufactured items and the assessee liable to be paid duty on the goods manufactured by them. As observed that the appellant was not required to pay duty, therefore, on pointing out by the audit team, any amount paid by the appellant shall be deposit made by them with the department although, the same has not paid under protest. In these circumstances, it is held that the amount paid by the appellant is not the duty and is only deposit. The revenue has no right to retain the said amount with them therefore, the appellant is entitled for refund claim to the amount deposit by them with the department. - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:Refund claim rejection on miscellaneous income of VAT and interest received from banks.Analysis:The appellant, located in Jammu & Kashmir, filed a refund claim for miscellaneous income received during 2011-2012, comprising VAT refund and bank interest. Initially, directed to pay duty on this income, the appellant complied, including paying interest and penalty. Subsequently, realizing that this income was not subject to excise duty, the appellant sought a refund, which was denied due to non-payment under protest. The appellant argued that as non-manufactured items, the income was not duty liable. The department contended that the voluntary payment constituted duty. Upon hearing both parties, it was established that the income was not duty liable, and any payments made were deposits, not duties. Therefore, the appellant was entitled to a refund, and the impugned order was set aside.In conclusion, the appellate tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal and granting any consequential relief.