2025 (5) TMI 1746

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the case is that M/s. S.C Johnson Products Pvt. Ltd., Bamunimaidan Industrial Area, Guwahati - 781021, having Central Excise Registration No. AAACL3128MXM003, is engaged in the manufacturing of Liquid Household Cleaners falling under Chapter 34 and Liquid Mosquito Repellent, Combi Pack (All Out) falling under Chapter 38 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Appellant is availing the area-based exemption under Notification No. 32/99-CE dated 08.07.1999 as amended by Notification No. 17/2008-CE dated 27.03.2008 and Notification No. 31/2008-CE dated 10.06.2008 ('Exemption Notifications'). 1. The rate of value addition for the products manufactured by the Appellant, i.e., products falling under Chapter 34....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....refund order, the figures were not in consonance with the figures mentioned in the monthly refund sanctioning orders, which would result in the change in eligible refund for Chapter 34 goods. In effect, the Department agitated the issue of refundable amount of Chapter 34 goods by challenging the refund sanctioning order of special rate of value addition pertaining to Chapter 38 goods. The Department alleged that if such figures of PLA mentioned in the underlying Order is considered, it would result in the Appellant having received excess refund for Chapter 34 goods vide the monthly refund sanctioning orders. 6. The Appellant appeared before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) during the PH scheduled on 04.12.2013 and submitted a detaile....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n based on the prescribed rates in the notification for Chapter 34 and 38 goods vide common monthly refund sanctioning orders. The Department never challenged such monthly refund sanctioning orders leading to the same attaining finality. A.2 Subsequently, the special rate of value addition of 61.80% was fixed by the Department for the Chapter 38 goods being manufactured and cleared by the Appellant. Based on such special rate fixed by the Department, vide the underlying Order, the Appellant received a differential refund of Rs. 2,99,85,996/- which is pertaining only to the Chapter 38 goods. A.3 The Department challenged such underlying Order before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), wherein the bone of contention was that if such figures....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to them, constitutes an absolute bar to a subsequent action involving the same claim, demand or cause of action. A.8 In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble CESTAT Kolkata in the case of M/s. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE & ST, Dibrugarh - 2024 (6) TMI 295 - CESTAT Kolkata wherein it was held that an issue which has attained finality cannot be re-agitated in a different proceedings. The relevant paragraph of the said decision is extracted below - "9.1 We observe that the issue of substantial expansion of the Appellant unit has already been adjudicated by the Ld. Commissioner of Central Excise vide order dated 20th March, 2003, against which the Revenue filed an appeal before this Tribun....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the appellant for the period in dispute was erroneous or not. However, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has decided the issue of substantial expansion which was not there before him. The issue of substantial expansion has already been decided for the unit in the Tribunal orders cited above. Accordingly, we hold that the same issue against the same unit cannot be raised again, which is against the principle of res judicata. Thus, we hold that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and accordingly we do so." A.9 Reliance is also placed on the following decisions wherein it was held that proceedings cannot sustain on the grounds of res-judicata when previous order with respect to the same issue was not challenged by the Department, and....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....8,577/-] 47,00,059 3 Actual duty paid on cleaners through PLA 46,95,325 4 Refund receivable on cleaners for the FY 2009-10 [Lower of 2 and 3] 46,95,325 5 Refund ought to be received (as per department) 35,51,850 6 Differential refund due to the Appellant 11,43,475 7 Excess refund received in certain monthsas alleged by the department 9,90,138 8 Net less refund received by the Appellant (6-7) 1,53,337 B.2 As is evident from the above table, even if it is assumed that the Appellant in the monthly refund orders has received some excess refund of Rs. 9,90,138/-, if the same is set off against the annual differential refund due to the Appellant, it would give rise to a net less refund a....