Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Rajasthan Spinning And Weaving Mills ... vs Cce on 12 June, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(71)ECC273
ORDER P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 8.2.94 passed by the Collector of Central Excises (Appeals) vide which he had affirmed the order in original of the Assistant Collector dated 19.11.93 adjusting outstanding duty amount of Rs. 2,46,260 from their refund claim of Rs. 26,58.655.
2. The facts giving rise to this appeal may briefly be stated as under:
3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of spun yarn of various specifications out of .manmade fabrics. They filed classification list on 2.5.78 vide which they claimed the classification under TI 68 of the erstwhile Tariff, but the same was modified by the concerned officer by classifying the product under TI 18-B(ii) of the Tariff. They contested that modification of their classification list and demand of differential duty raised from them through the show cause notices. The Tribunal vide Final Order No. 28 & 29/84-D dated 25.1.84 set aside the orders of the authorities below and observed that the products were classifiable under TI 68 of the erstwhile Tariff. Regarding the demand of the differential duty amount for the period May 1978 to Sept. 1978 and October 1978 to March 1979 the Tribunal also observed that the same had become time barred. That order of the Tribunal was, however, challenged by the revenue and the Apex Court vide order dated 21.1.92 reversed the same by holding that the products were classification under TI 18-B(ii) and the duty should be levied accordingly.
4. Thereafter, the duty demands were raised. The appellants deposited Rs. 49,596 in pursuance of the above said order of the Apex Court. They, however, claimed refund of Rs. 26,58,655 which they deposited by the orders of the CEGAT during the pendency of the appeal. The Assistant Collector sanctioned refund through Order-in-Original but ordered the deduction of Rs. 2,46,260 from the same for appropriation towards the outstanding duty amount. This order of the Assistant Collector dated 19.11.93 was challenged by the appellants before the Collector (Appeals) who affirmed the same by dismissing the appeal.
5. The appellants have come up in appeal.
6. The learned Counsel for the appellants has assailed the validity of the impugned order on the main ground that no deduction of the amount in question from the refund claim of the appellants could be made as the same had become time barred and it was even so held by the Tribunal, in their earlier appeal vide order Nos. 28 & 29/84 dated 25.1.84, But in our view, this contention of the learned Counsel is misconceived and not liable to be accepted. The facts are not much in dispute. Admittedly the dispute regarding the classification of the spun yarn in the manufacture of which the appellants are engaged, arose as they classified the same under TI 68 of the erstwhile Tariff while the Revenue wanted the classification under TI 18-B(ii). The Revenue authorities did not accept their version and they took the matter before the Tribunal by filing appeal against the orders of the authorities below. The Tribunal accepted their appeal and set aside the orders of the authorities below regarding classification. It was also observed that the consequential demand of the differential duty amount for the period specified in the show cause notices had become time barred. But this order of the Tribunal was undoubtedly challenged by the Revenue before the Apex Court and the Apex Court set aside the same by accepting the appeal of the Revenue. The Apex Court observed that the products of the appellants were classifiable under TI 18-B(ii) of the erstwhile Tariff and the duty should be levied accordingly. Regarding the other questions discussed by the Tribunal the Apex Court observed that in the view taken by them those did not arise. This order was passed by the Apex Court on 21.1.92.
7. In pursuance of the Apex Court, above said order, the Revenue became entitled to recover the differential duty amount from the appellants as was earlier determined by the Assistant Collector. They only made deposit of Rs. 49,596 and balance amount of Rs. 2,46,260.28 was outstanding against them. Therefore, while sanctioning the refund claim of the appellants of Rs. 26,58,655 which they deposited while filing the appeal before the Tribunal, the Revenue was entitled to adjust the same. The argument of the learned Counsel that this amount was already to be time barred by the Tribunal while deciding the classification issue vide order dated 25.1.84 and as such could not be recovered, is wholly misconceived and not liable to be accepted. The order of the Tribunal, as observed above, was set aside by the Apex Court vide Order dated 21.1.92 and the appeal of the Revenue was allowed. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal stood merged in the order of the Apex Court and the Apex Court specifically ordered before parting with the judgment, that the duty should be levied accordingly as the products of the appellants were classifiable under TI 18B(ii) of the Erstwhile Tariff. The Revenue accordingly worked out the differential duty amount. No shelter under the order of the Tribunal can be taken by the appellants for avoiding to pay the outstanding differential duty amount as the said order become non-est in the eyes of law after it was set aside by the Apex Court. The Apex Court vide its order dated 21.1.92 did not confirm any part of the order of the Tribunal. The appeal of the Revenue was accepted in toto and not partly only relating to classification. The Apex Court while ordering the classification of the products of the appellants under TI 18-B(ii) of the Tariff further directed specifically that the duty should be levied accordingly. Therefore, the Revenue authorities were within their right to adjust the outstanding differential duty amount from the refund claim of the appellants.
8. The impugned order of the Collector (Appeals) confirming the order of the Assistant Collector regarding the deduction of the balance amount of Rs. 2,46,260.28 from the refund claim of the appellants for adjustment towards their outstanding duty amount, is perfectly valid and no interference is called for.
9. Resultantly, there is no merit in the appeal of the appellants and the same is dismissed.