CESTAT allows refund of Rs.18,38,774 against CENVAT credit reversal demand on capital goods removal under Rule 41

CESTAT Mumbai allowed the appeal regarding refund adjustment against duty demand. The tribunal held that after SC order, no amount was payable by way of CENVAT credit reversal on capital goods removal when paid on depreciated value. Based on appellant's request dated 12.12.2023, entire amount of Rs.18,38,774/- required refund within 15 days per Board Circular dated 10.03.2017, with interest under Section 11BB if delayed. CESTAT exercised power under Rule 41 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 to implement SC enforcement order, set aside Commissioner (Appeals) order, and granted appellant refund of Rs.18,38,774/- with applicable interest against inadmissible credit demand.

---

---

Issues:
1. Adjustment of refund against outstanding duty dues and interest confirmed by Tribunal and High Court.
2. Refund of additional amount deposited based on High Court order.
3. Legality of adjustment of sanctioned refund against duty due.
4. Jurisdictional competency of the Tribunal to deal with post-Commissioner (Appeals) order issue.

Analysis:
1. The Appellant challenged the adjustment of the entire refund amount of Rs. 13,50,000 against outstanding duty dues and interest confirmed by the Tribunal and High Court. The dispute arose from the denial of Service Tax paid on inputs, which was set aside by the Tribunal, leading to the accrual of the refund amount. Additionally, an additional amount of Rs. 4,88,774 deposited based on a High Court order was also sought to be refunded by the Respondent-Department.

2. The Appellant, a manufacturer of plastic laminated tubes, was involved in a complex dispute regarding the refund of CENVAT Credit on excise duty paid for capital goods. The dispute involved multiple stages of confirmation and setting aside of demands by various authorities, including the Adjudicating Authority, Appellate Authority, Tribunal, and High Court. The Appellant was granted a refund of Rs. 13,50,000 in another proceeding, which the Refund Sanctioning Authority proposed to adjust against confirmed duty dues. The Appellant contested this adjustment, citing an appeal before the Supreme Court, which subsequently ruled in favor of the Appellant.

3. The Tribunal, after considering submissions from both sides, concluded that the issue of adjustment of refund against duty demand became infructuous following the Supreme Court's order. The Tribunal highlighted the necessity of refunding the entire amount of Rs. 18,38,774 (Rs. 13.5 lakhs + Rs. 4.88 lakhs) to the Appellant within 15 days of the request letter, failing which interest under Section 11BB would be payable. The Tribunal invoked the Supreme Court (Decrees and Orders) Enforcement Order, 1954, to enforce the Supreme Court's decision and set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order justifying the adjustment.

4. The Tribunal, in exercising its power under Rule 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, allowed the appeal and directed the refund of the payment against the demand for inadmissible credit taken by the Appellant, along with applicable interest. The Tribunal emphasized compliance with the relief accrued after the Supreme Court's order within a month of the Tribunal's order.

---