TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1615
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ties for the period from April 2001 to February 2007 on the assumption that the said refunds have been erroneously granted. Since the rates of final products were provisional and not fixed in view of the fluctuating market prices, the assessee followed the practice of issuance of credit notes. The duty paid in excess was claimed as refund on a periodical basis. 3. Show Cause Notices [SCN] were initially issued to propose rejection of refund claims which later culminated into adjudication order by which refund claims came to be rejected. The assessee preferred appeals which were allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal dated 02.09.2004 and 03.09.2004. 4. The Department disputed the said appeal orders and preferred appeal before the Tribunal, Bangalore Bench. As no stay was granted by the Tribunal, the Department sanctioned refund vide Orders dated 21.04.2005. Thereafter, the Bangalore Bench of this Tribunal vide Order dated 16.08.2005 rejected the appeals filed by the Revenue thus upholding Appeal Order dated 02.09.2004 and 03.09.2004 by relying on Principal Bench Final Order passed in Appellant's own case pertaining to their Allahabad unit, reported in 2003 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for the Department. 11. The Counsel for the Appellant made the following submissions:- (i) All the Orders passed by authorities in the executory proceedings, subsequent to Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated 19.03.2015, got merged in the said order of Apex Court on the basis of which the very entitlement of refund claim stood upheld. Thus, the entire proceedings are liable to be set aside on this ground alone. (ii) He submitted that even the decision in Addison & Co. (supra) supported the Appellant's case. The appeal orders dated 02.09.2004 and 03.09.2004 by which entitlement of refund claim was allowed, were further upheld by this Tribunal's Bangalore Bench in the Department's appeal vide Final Order dated 16.08.2005. In the said order, the Tribunal specifically observed that there is no unjust enrichment as the appellant assessee had not passed on the incidence of duty to any other person, as observed by Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) wherein the earlier Final Order dated 15.07.2003 in assessee's own case, passed by the Principal Bench at Delhi was relied. (iii) The Bangalore Bench categorically observed in the aforesaid order that the price had not been....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....upheld by the Bangalore Bench which stood further affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court as stated above. Merely on the basis of a subsequent decision in Addison & Co., the authorities took a contra view. The refund already sanctioned under Section 11B cannot be said to be erroneously granted. He relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in Topcem India vs. UOI 2021 (376) E.L.T. 573 (Gau) to buttress his argument. (vi) The refund claim has been rejected in the de-novo adjudication order dated 17.11.2023 merely on the ground of unjust enrichment which is not proper. He submits that Tribunal have consistently held that the authorities are firstly required to independently ascertain whether refund claim is admissible in- principle. Once it is found that claim is admissible, the same should either be transferred to Consumer Welfare Fund ('Fund') or paid to the assessee instead of transferring it to the Fund. The authorities cannot reject the refund merely on the ground of unjust enrichment. He relied on the decision in Western Coalfields Ltd vs. CCE, Nagpur (Final Order dated 08.02.2024 in Excise Appeal No.85266 of 2014) and further in the case of VST Industries Ltd ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Indore [(2024) 20 Centax 290 (MP)]. ⮚ AC, IT, Rajkot vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. [2008 (9) TMI 11-Supreme Court]. ⮚ M/s Margadarsi Marketing Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE & ST, Hyderabad-IV [2026 (3) TMI-CESTAT Hyderabad]. He thus prayed that the appeals filed by the assessee be dismissed being devoid of any merit. 13. Heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. 14. I note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 19.03.2015 has dismissed the appeal filed by Revenue against the Bangalore Bench Order dated 16.08.2005. Thus, the entire refund claim already sanctioned consequent to said order of Tribunal attained finality, which cannot be disturbed in executory proceedings. In so far as the case of unjust enrichment is concerned, I note that the Bangalore Bench of this Tribunal in Final order dated 16.08.2005 specifically observed that there is no unjust enrichment as the appellant assessee had not passed on the incidence of duty to any other person, as observed by the Commissioner (Appeals) who relied upon the earlier Final Order dated 15.07.2003 in assessee's own case by the Principal Bench at Delhi. The Tribunal had noted t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....its buyers which was evidenced by a certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant on 2-8-2002. The refund claim was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolhapur Division vide an order dated 24-9-2002 on the ground that the Assessee did not submit either the credit notes or the Chartered Accountant's certificate at the time of filing the refund application. Not satisfied with the genuineness of the documents the Deputy Commissioner rejected the refund claim. The Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Pune allowed the appeal filed by the Assessee by taking note of the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant and the credit notes dated 29-7-2002. The Appellate Authority accepted the Assessee's contentions and held that there was no reason to doubt the genuineness of the documents produced. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal of the Assessee and the said order was confirmed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 6-10-2005. The said order of Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal was further confirmed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Customs Excise Appeal No. 100 of 2008 filed by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation); and (iii) Res judicata pro veritateoccipitur (A judicial decision must be accepted as correct). It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that these maxims would indicate that there must be an end to litigation otherwise the rights of persons would be in an endless confusion and fluid and justice would suffer. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced for ready reference:- "6. With regard to the reference order made on 27-9-2021 on a miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue seeking to undo the judgment in M/s SRD Nutrients (P) Limited which was overruled in the subsequent judgment of this Court in M/s Unicorn Industries (supra), the question is whether there was a need at all to refer the matter to a larger Bench. This is for two reasons: firstly, such an application could not have been filed after a review petition in M/s SRD Nutrients (P) Limited had been dismissed by this Court. Thus, in substance, by filing the miscellaneous application the revenue was seeking a second review of the said judgment which is impermissible in law (Order XLVII Rule 9 CPC). Secondly, by ignoring the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC and the principle tha....