The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi, has rejected a refund claim of Rs. 15 lakh on the ground that the amount was not shown to be linked to any specific investigation or earlier adjudicated matter.
The bench of Justice Somesh Arora (Judicial Member) has observed that there was no proof that the Rs. 15 lakh was related to the previous case already decided in 2019. The appellant did not file any Rectification of Mistake (ROM) application after the earlier order to clarify the linkage of the payment. The amount was not reflected in the previous appeal memorandum, weakening the refund claim.
The bench observed that Rs. 15 lakh could not be treated as part of the earlier dispute. Accordingly, the Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claim.
The appellant/assessee, M/S Sourabh Rolling Mills Pvt Ltd had earlier deposited Rs. 85 lakh (₹70 lakh + ₹15 lakh) following a show cause notice. While ₹70 lakh was appropriated towards duty in a clandestine removal case—later refunded with interest after the company’s success before CESTAT—the additional ₹15 lakh was not indicated as related to that proceeding. The Department maintained that since the amount was unappropriated and another investigation was pending, the refund could not be sanctioned.
The Department, however, rejected the claim, stating that there was no indication from the appellant that the ₹15 lakh deposit was linked to the earlier appeal. It was neither mentioned in the appeal memorandum nor appropriated by the Department against that particular case. Moreover, the Department pointed out that another investigation involving the company was pending, suggesting that the ₹15 lakh could pertain to that proceeding.
While dismissing the appeal, the Tribunal granted liberty to Sourabh Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. to indicate within 15 days of receiving the order which specific investigation the ₹15 lakh payment pertained to. This clarification, the Tribunal noted, would help the Department in determining proper appropriation in the future.
“However, it is made clear that the party will not be able, at this stage, to appropriate this amount of ₹15 lakhs in relation to the present case,” the order stated.
Case Details
Case Title: M/S Sourabh Rolling Mills Pvt Ltd. Versus Commissioner Of Central GST, Central Excise And Customs
Case No.: Excise Appeal No. 50282 Of 2025
Date: 16/10/2025
Counsel For Appellant: Jitin Singhal, Advocate
Counsel For Respondent: V.J. Saharan, Authorised Representative
Read More: Customs Dept. Can’t Alter FOB Value: CESTAT
