2019 (11) TMI 239 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal orders fresh consideration of appeals, eligibility for relief tied to reassessment. Refund claim rejection upheld.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and directed a fresh consideration of all appeals before the first appellate authority. The decision on ... Refund of duties of central excise discharged by Deputy Executive Engineer (Civil), Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co Ltd, Murud - eligibility for exemption afforded by notification no. 74/1993-CE dated 28th February 1993 - HELD THAT:- The exercise of jurisdiction by any appellate forum is restricted to the dispute before that authority and the effect of the order is limited to that. There was, understandably, no appeal of Revenue against rejection of the claim in its entirety in the order of the original authority and in the absence of such appeal, the decision of the first appellate authority is but a decision that, presuming the validity of eligibility in the order of Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Nanded, on the bar of limitation. While we had, on the former occasion, held that the claim of eligibility for the earlier period was not valid in law, the challenge to the grant of eligibility for exemption for the period thereafter, which is now before us, will have to be decided in the context in which the claim was accepted. The appeal of Revenue against the modification of rejection by the original authority in the order impugned before us does merit attention for that very reason. However, the conformity thereof should be tested before the authority that granted such relief. The appeal of Revenue is allowed by way of remand to the first appellate authority to subject the claim of the appellant therein to relief. The eligibility to consequential relief, including interest for delayed disbursal, is dependent on this determination. The first appellate authority is directed to consider all the appeals before it afresh after giving due consideration to the submissions made by the respective appellants therein - appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues:Refund of duties under central excise, eligibility for exemption under notification no. 74/1993-CE, rejection of refund claims, interest under section 11BB of Central Excise Act, rejection of second claim for refund, exclusion from duty liability, appeal against first appellate authority's decision, eligibility for consequential relief, interpretation of legal precedents.Analysis:1. The genesis of the appeals lies in the refund claims for central excise duties made by an assessee arising from a claim of eligibility for exemption under notification no. 74/1993-CE. The original authority rejected the claims based on grounds of limitation and non-decision by the Tribunal. The first appellate authority partially allowed the first claim, rejected the second claim, and allowed interest under section 11BB. The appeals by Revenue challenge the refund, consequential relief, and interest, while the assessee cross-objected against the grant of consequential relief.2. The rejection of the second refund claim was upheld based on a precedent set by a Larger Bench regarding the eligibility for exemption. The Tribunal upheld the decision, emphasizing that the organization did not meet the criteria of being a government department, thus affirming the duty liability.3. The appeal against the exclusion from duty liability was analyzed, highlighting that the first appellate authority's decision was limited to the dispute before it. The Tribunal remanded the appeal to the first authority to reconsider the eligibility for relief, including interest, based on the validity of the eligibility for exemption.4. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of legal precedents in interpreting the eligibility for exemption under notification no. 74/1993-CE. The decision was based on the organization's status as a government department and the usage of the manufactured goods, ultimately affirming the duty liability.5. In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and directed a fresh consideration of all appeals before the first appellate authority. The decision on eligibility for consequential relief, including interest, was deemed dependent on the reassessment by the authority.(Order pronounced on 24/10/2019)