M/S. Rajasthan Textiles Mills vs C.C.E. & S.T
- CitationExcise Appeal No.E/50690/2014 EX. [SM]
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where the Revenue's only ground for denying a refund claim is that the matter is sub judice on appeal, and the higher court has since disposed of that appeal in the claimant's favour, the claimant is entitled to the refund of duty or charges paid under protest, and the denial on that ground cannot stand.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.134(VC)CE/JPR-I/2013 dated 24.10.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise Commissionerate, Jaipur-I]
For approval and signature:
HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
M/s. Rajasthan Textiles Mills Appellant
Vs.
C.C.E. & S.T. Respondent
Present for the Appellant : Shri Mayank Garg, Advocate
Present for the Respondent: Shri R.K. Mishra, D.R.
Coram: HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Date of Hearing/Decision: 25.08.2015
Final ORDER NO. 54093/2015
PER: S.K. MOHANTY
The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn and synthetic yarn falling under chapter 54 and 55 of the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985. During the disputed period i.e. January, 2011 to March, 2012, the appellant had filed the refund application for Rs.67,160/-, claiming refund of merchant over time (MOT) paid for stopping of export container. However, the refund was denied by the authorities below on the ground that in the case of the appellant itself, the order dated 12.04.2007 passed by this Tribunal has been appealed before the Honble Rajasthan High Court and the matter is sub judice and the operation of the order of the Tribunal has been stayed by the Honble High Court.
2. Shri Mayank Garg, the ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the appeal filed against the order dated 12.04.2007 of this Tribunal has been disposed of by the Honble Rajasthan High Court vide order dated 27th January, 2015 in favour of the respondent (the appellant herein). According to the ld. Advocate, since the issue arising out of the present dispute has been settled in favour of the appellant in view of the judgment of the Honble Rajasthan High Court, the appellant is eligible for refund of the MOT charges.
3. Shri R.K. Mishra, the ld. D.R. appearing for the Revenue also accepts the fact that the decision of the Tribunal has been upheld by the Honble High Court and the appeal filed by the Department has been dismissed.
4. Considering the fact that the Revenue has denied the refund claim only on the ground that the matter is sub judice before the Honble High Court and the Revenue appeal has already been dismissed by the Honble Rajasthan High Court vide order dated 27th January, 2015, I am of the considered view that the appellant shall be eligible for the refund of the MOT charges paid by it under protest. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, under the law.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
(S.K. MOHANTY)
MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Anita
??
??
??
??
0 2 E/50690/2014 EX. [SM]
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free