M/s. Leo Oils and Lubricants Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Central Excise
2018 (7) TMI 997 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 13-7-2018
Appeal No. E/40362/2018 – Final Order No. 42012 / 2018
Central Excise
Hon'ble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)
Shri T.R. Ramesh, Advocate for the Appellant
Shri K.P. Muralidharan, AC (AR) for the Respondent
ORDER
Brief facts are that the appellant is engaged in manufacture lubricating oils on job work basis to M/s. IBP Ltd. and were availing the facility of MODVAT scheme. They applied for transitional credit to the tune of Rs. 11,03,303/- which was not granted by the department. The matter reached the Tribunal and vide Final Order No. 40880/2016 dated 3.6.2016, Tribunal allowed the appeal of the appellant observing that the appellant is entitled to cash refund to the tune of Rs. 11,03,303/. The factum of final order was intimated to the department requesting for refund of the said amount.
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
no powers to readjudicate the matter which has been already decided by the Tribunal. It is also submitted by him that no show cause notice was issued to the appellant for raising the contention that the appellant is not eligible for refund of Rs. 8,13,816/-.
3. The ld. AR Shri K.P. Muralidharan supported the findings in the impugned order. He adverted to the discussions in the Order-in-Original and submitted that the credit to the tune of Rs. 8,13,816/- was already allowed to the appellant as transitional credit on 7.2.1996 and it was not reflecting in the credit balance when the assessee has opted out of the MODVAT scheme in March 2003. That this would mean that the appellant has utilized the credit of Rs. 8,13,816/- and therefore the authorities below have rightly disallowed the refund.
4. Heard both sides.
5. At the outset, it has to be stated that the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 40880/2016 dated 3.6.2016, had categorically held that the appellant is eligible for cash refund of
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
such as the one if allowed to continue would deprive the assessees, as in the instant case. In view of the foregoing discussions, I hold that appellant is entitled to cash refund. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief.”
6. It is thus seen that the Tribunal had considered the issue whether the appellant is eligible for cash refund to the tune of Rs. 11,03,303/- and held that the same is eligible. The adjudication authority who is put to notice with regard to the order of the Tribunal has to then comply with the order and sanction the refund. He has no powers to enter into the issues which have already been decided by the Tribunal. Interestingly, the adjudication has happened by merely giving a personal hearing and not even issuing a show cause notice. Further, in para 1 of the order passed by the Tribunal, it is noted that the issue with regard to Rs. 8,13,816/- was not contested by the department and after several rounds of litigation vide Order-in-Original No.
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =