M/S. Royal Castor Products Limited vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & S.T., ...

(Arising out of OIA-185/2011-AHD-III-DSINGH/COMMR-A-/AHD dated 19.10.2011, Passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, & S.T., Ahmedabad)

M/s. Royal Castor Products Limited : Appellant (s)

VERSUS

Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Ahmedabad : Respondent (s)

Represented by :

For Appellant (s) : Shri S.J. Vyas, Advocate For Respondent (s) : Shri J. Nair, Authorised Representative

For approval and signature :

Mr. P.K. Das, Honble Member (Judicial)

1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

No 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

Yes

CORAM :

Mr. P.K. Das, Honble Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing / Decision : 24.03.2015

ORDER No. A/10271 / 2015 Dated 24.03.2015

Per : Mr. P.K. Das;

Relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Castrol Oil. They have availed CENVAT credit on the inputs used in the manufacture of dutiable as well as exempted final products. A show cause notice dated 29.10.2006 was issued proposing to demand 8% / 10% amount of the value of exempted goods, under Cenvat Credit Rules. The Commissioner of Central Excise by order dated 26.03.2010 adjudicated the matter and confirmed the demand of Rs. 15.63 Lacs under the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules, which was paid by them. By final order No. A/743/WZB/AHD/2011 dated 05.05.2011, the Tribunal set-aside the order passed by the Commissioner and remanded the matter to the Commissioner to decide the matter under the provisions of Finance Act, 2010 in respect of reversal of amount of 8% / 10% of the value of the exempted goods. In the meantime, the appellant filed the refund claim of Rs. 15,95,558/-, as deposited by them. A show cause notice dated 21.7.2011 was issued proposing to reject the refund claim, as the same is premature. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant filed this appeal against the rejection of refund claim.

2. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of records, I find that both the authorities below observed that refund claim is premature as the de-novo adjudication is still pending. On a query from the Bench, the learned Advocate for the appellant submits that the Tribunal passed the order in 2011 and de-novo adjudication is still pending. In my considered view, as the de-novo adjudication is pending before the Commissioner and therefore, the matter may be remanded to the Commissioner to decide afresh.

3. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order is set-aside. The matter is remanded to Commissioner with directions to decide the present matter with pending de-novo adjudication, as per the order of the Tribunal dated 05.05.2011. As the matter is old one, Commissioner is directed to decide as expeditiously as possible. Appeal is allowed by way of remand.

(Order dictated & pronounced in the Court)

(P.K. Das) Member (Judicial) .KL

3