Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Automotive Coaches & Components ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 26 October, 2015
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
E/40379/2014
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.230/2013 (M II), dated 03.12.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai]
M/s. AUTOMOTIVE COACHES & COMPONENTS LTD.
APPELLANT
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI-II
RESPONDENT
Appearance:
For the Appellant Shri M. Kannan, Adv.
For the Respondent Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) CORAM:
Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member Date of hearing/decision 26-10-2015 FINAL ORDER No. 41641 / 2015 Learned counsel that M. Kannan submits that perusal of the appellate order does not throw light as to whether learned Commissioner (Appeals) has examined the reasons why the refund in respect of 69 chassis arises. It was his duty to give effect to para 5 of the order of the Tribunal in the case of the appellant as reported in 2011 (264) E.L.T.518 (Tri.-Chennai) whereby Tribunal directed refund of excess duty, if any, paid subject to legal provisions contained in law. But learned Adjudicating Authoring had total disregard to such decision of the Tribunal. Learned appellate authority in para 6 of his order denied refund on the ground that the appellant was before Tribunal in first round of litigation and the matter ended there. But that was not the situation.
2. It was further submitted that in so far as 69 chassis is concerned, excess doing thereon area and above the liability was paid. Therefore such excess permanent requires scrutiny with the assistance of the appellant.
3. Revenue on the other hand says that the appellate commissioner has passed an appropriate order. The appellant lost its right after the Tribunal's order and no refund arose thereby.
4. Heard both sides and perused the records.
5. There is no whisper in the impugned order as to the reason why refund arises. It is therefore necessary to refer to para 5 of the order of the Tribunal which reads as under:-
5.? As regards the issue of valuation, we find that the same is beyond the scope of dispute raised in the show-cause notice. The department has merely accepted the value declared by the appellants. In case, they have paid duty on a higher value as contended by the learned counsel, the proper course by the appellants would be to apply for refund of excess duty subject to the legal provisions in force.
6. It is elementary principle of jurisprudence that the duty if any, paid excessively should not enrich the State at the cost of the citizen. Therefore, the Adjudicating authority is directed to examine whether any duty was paid in excess of the duty actually payable in respect of 69 chassis as pleaded by learned counsel. If there is any excess payment that should not be retained with the State but should be refunded to the appellant. It is pertinent to mention that guidelines for grant of refund is laid down apex court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Vs Union of India 1997 (89) ELT 247 (SC). The authority following such guidelines shall order refund, if any, admissible in accordance with law. The authority shall therefore grant fair opportunity of hearing to the appellant and examining the evidence thoroughly shall pass appropriate order.
7. In the result, the matter is remanded to the Adjudicating authority.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (D.N. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ksr/rkp 3 E/40379/2014