1992 (8) TMI 193 - AT - Central Excise

Issues:
1. Department's appeal against the order directing refund of excess amount paid by Respondent.
2. Contention regarding entitlement to claim refund of excise duty.
3. Dispute over differential duty and value per set.
4. Finality of Collector (Appeals) order dated 7-9-1987.
5. Department's obligation to refund excess amount.
6. Legal proceedings and findings leading to the judgment.

Analysis:

1. The Department filed an appeal against the order directing the refund of the excess amount paid by the Respondent. The Department argued that the Respondents, as the real manufacturers of Radio Cassette Recorders, should not be entitled to claim a refund of excise duty paid by another company, DIGICO India Ltd. The Department contended that the Respondents should pay appropriate duty on the goods manufactured by DIGICO on their behalf. The Department sought to set aside the impugned order.

2. The Respondent's counsel argued that the issue of the Respondents being the manufacturer and the computation of differential duty had been settled in a previous order by the Collector (Appeals) dated 7-9-1987. The Respondents sought to enforce this order by applying for a refund. The Assistant Collector had rejected the refund claim, leading the Respondents to appeal again before the Collector (Appeals), who found in favor of the Respondent under the impugned order. The Respondents contended that the issue had been conclusively decided in the earlier order and could not be reopened. The impugned order rectified the injustice committed by the Assistant Collector.

3. The Tribunal noted that the Respondents had been held as the manufacturer, and the Collector (Appeals) had directed them to pay differential duty based on a specific value per set. The Tribunal held that since the order of the Collector (Appeals) had become final and the Department had not appealed against it, the Respondents were entitled to claim a refund of the excess amount paid. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order and rejected the Department's appeal, directing the Department to refund the excess amount within three months.

4. The legal proceedings revealed that the Respondents were initially issued a show cause notice by the Assistant Collector demanding duty. The lower authority found that the Respondents were the manufacturers and demanded duty on the total assessable value of the goods. However, on appeal, the Collector (Appeals) restricted the demand to the differential amount, acknowledging the duty already paid by DIGICO. The Department did not challenge this finding, and the matter had attained finality. The Tribunal concurred with the lower findings and rejected the Department's appeal, emphasizing that the Respondents should not be subject to double taxation.

In conclusion, the judgment upheld the Collector (Appeals) order, emphasizing the finality of the previous decision and the Respondent's entitlement to a refund. The Department was directed to refund the excess amount, and the legal proceedings highlighted the correct application of duty laws and principles of res judicata.

← Previous Next →