2005 (11) TMI 274 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
Refund claims rejection, Credit Notes issuance, Appeal by Department against Order-in-Appeal.

Analysis:
The case pertains to refund claims of a company initially rejected by the adjudicating authority but subsequently allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to an appeal by the Department. The Department argued that the refund should not have been granted as the company had issued Credit Notes to their Purchasers, citing settled case laws. Despite the absence of representation from the respondent company, the Tribunal examined the submissions. The Commissioner (Appeals) had noted that the over-payment was due to a calculation mistake, not representing excise duty, thus warranting a refund. The Commissioner found no evidence supporting the claim that the amount had been passed on to buyers. Moreover, the adjudicating authority failed to consider the company's plea regarding Credit Notes issued to buyers, indicating the amount was not borne by customers as excise duty. Consequently, the Commissioner concluded that the company's payment was a mistake, resulting in excess payment to the Government, and as the excess amount was not recovered from purchasers, the company was eligible for a refund.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order, noting that all aspects raised by the Department had been considered, and the conclusion that the company's payment was a mistake leading to excess payment was valid. Therefore, the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, and the Cross Objection filed by the Revenue was also disposed of.