2025 (3) TMI 778 - AT - Central Excise

Revenue cannot reopen settled refund claims through piecemeal adjudication after failing to challenge first appellate order

Fourrts India Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai Outer Commissionerate

Fourrts India Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai Outer Commissionerate - TMI 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this judgment include:Whether the valuation of physician samples should be determined under Rule 4 or Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000.Whether the CBEC Circular dated 25.4.2005, which clarifies the valuation method for physician samples, should be applied retrospectively.Whether the doctrine of unjust enrichment applies to the refund claims made by the appellant.Whether the refund claims were time-barred.The applicability of the principle of res judicata in the context of the second round of litigation initiated by the department.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISValuation Method for Physician SamplesRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The valuation of physician samples was initially guided by CBEC Circular No. 643/34/2002 CX, which suggested valuation at 100%/115% of the cost of production under Rule 8. However, a subsequent Circular dated 25.4.2005 suggested valuation under Rule 4, which was argued to apply retrospectively.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the department's appeal was based on the argument that the valuation should be on a comparable price basis under Rule 4, as per the 2005 Circular. However, this issue had already been addressed in the first appellate order, which favored the appellant's position.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal emphasized that the first appellate order, which allowed the refund based on Rule 8 valuation, was not challenged by the department, making it final and binding.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal rejected the department's argument for retrospective application of the 2005 Circular, emphasizing the finality of the first appellate order.Doctrine of Unjust EnrichmentRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The doctrine of unjust enrichment, as established in the Solar Pesticides case, was considered to determine if the duty burden was passed on to consumers.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal noted that the adjudicating authority had already examined and concluded that unjust enrichment did not apply as there were no sales, and this finding was not contested in the first appeal.Time-Barred Refund ClaimsApplication of Law to Facts: The Tribunal observed that the issue of time-barred claims was not a valid ground for the department's second appeal, as it was not raised in the initial proceedings.Principle of Res JudicataRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The principle of res judicata, as articulated in Gangai Vinayagar Temple Vs Meenakashi Ammal, prevents re-litigation of issues that have been conclusively settled.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal underscored the finality of the first appellate order, which the department failed to challenge, thus barring further litigation on the same issues.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: 'The first appellate order had become final and binding on the parties, and the respondent could not question it in any way.'Core Principles Established: The Tribunal reinforced the principle that once an appellate order is not challenged, it becomes final and binding, precluding further litigation on the same grounds. Additionally, it highlighted the importance of adhering to procedural rules and the doctrine of res judicata to prevent unnecessary litigation.Final Determinations on Each Issue:The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeals and granting the appellant eligibility for consequential relief as per law.The Tribunal concluded that the department's attempt to reopen settled issues without challenging the first appellate order was procedurally improper and legally unsound.The Tribunal emphasized the binding nature of the first appellate order and the improper basis of the department's second round of appeals.