Tribunal grants refund for duty on coal ash, deeming Commissioner's action impermissible.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order that rejected a refund claim for duty paid on coal ash. The Assistant Commissioner's appropriation of the refund amount against a pending duty demand was deemed legally impermissible. Relying on precedents and a CBEC circular, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, emphasizing that such appropriation was not valid. The decision was rendered on 31/08/2017, granting relief to the appellant.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal against rejection of refund claim for duty paid on coal ash - Appropriation of refund amount against pending duty demand - Legal sustainability of impugned order.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the rejection of a refund claim for duty paid on coal ash by the appellants, who are engaged in the manufacture of clinker and cement. The refund claim was for a specific amount, and the Assistant Commissioner appropriated this amount against a confirmed duty demand from a previous order. The Commissioner(Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the present appeal. The appellant contended that the impugned order ignored binding judicial precedents and was unsustainable in law. The appellant argued that the appropriation of the refund against the pending duty demand was improper and not legally sound. The appellant relied on various decisions and a circular issued by the CBEC to support their case, emphasizing that the issue had been settled in favor of the assessee.

During the hearing, the appellant's counsel highlighted that the appropriation of the refund amount against a duty demand pending in other cases, which had not attained finality, was not legally permissible. Citing the case of ABB Ltd., the Tribunal acknowledged that it is well-established that such appropriation is not proper. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the impugned order was not sustainable in law. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal of the appellant and providing consequential relief. The decision was pronounced in open court on 31/08/2017.

---