2006 (8) TMI 49 - HC - Central Excise

Court affirms Tribunal's excise duty refund denial, citing precedent. Limited scope for challenge.

The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the petitioner's refund claim for excise duty paid on LPG cylinders, citing the MRF judgment as ... Central Excise –Clearance of goods not made on provisional basis –Reduced price at later date could not be made foundation for seeking refund –Different view taken by co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal -Oral prayer made by Counsel for certified that the case fit for appeal to S.C. –Unable to accept the request as matter covered by judgments of S.C. Issues involved:1. Interpretation of Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding refund claim.2. Application of previous judgments by Tribunal.3. Consideration of time-barred refund claim.4. Requirement of constituting a Larger Bench by Tribunal.Issue 1: Interpretation of Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding refund claim:The petitioner, a manufacturer of LPG cylinders, sought a refund of excise duty paid during a specific period due to a reduction in prices by the oil company to whom the cylinders were supplied. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim citing the MRF Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise judgment, emphasizing that subsequent price fluctuations do not affect the liability to pay excise duty unless there is an agreement with the government for a refund. The Commissioner (Appeals) partially allowed the refund, and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the authority's decision based on the MRF judgment.Issue 2: Application of previous judgments by Tribunal:The petitioner argued that the Tribunal should have followed the Kolkata Bench judgment in Utkal Polyweave Indus. Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar, but the Tribunal relied on the MRF judgment and a Larger Bench decision, rejecting the petitioner's claim. The petitioner contended that the Larger Bench decision in Rajiv Mardia's case had been overruled by a still Larger Bench, but the Tribunal maintained its stance based on the Supreme Court's MRF judgment.Issue 3: Consideration of time-barred refund claim:The Tribunal noted the concession by the petitioner that the claim was time-barred and not pressed. The argument regarding the time-barred claim was a factor in the Commissioner (Appeals) partially rejecting the refund. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the time-barred nature of the claim and the direct applicability of the MRF judgment.Issue 4: Requirement of constituting a Larger Bench by Tribunal:The petitioner raised the issue of the Tribunal constituting a Larger Bench for considering the matter, especially in light of conflicting decisions. However, the Tribunal, supported by the revenue's counsel, maintained that the issue was conclusively settled by the Supreme Court's judgments, and there was no need for a Larger Bench. The High Court concurred, dismissing the petition and declining certification for an appeal to the Supreme Court due to the matter's settled nature.In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the petition, affirming the Tribunal's decision based on the MRF judgment and the absence of grounds for a reference to the Court or the constitution of a Larger Bench. The judgment underscores the significance of established legal precedents in interpreting excise duty refund claims and the limited scope for challenging decisions based on settled law.