2011 (11) TMI 162 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal grants appeal, approves interest on refund, remands for further review.

M/s Topland Exports Versus CCE Rajkot

The Tribunal allowed the appeal with consequential relief, emphasizing that the delay in refund processing was not due to lack of documents. The appellant ... Non- payment of interest on refund of Excise duty paid – Held that:- As observed in the Show Cause Notice and corrigendum in 2000 there was no mention of deficiency of documents. Further, on merit the issue has already been decided by Commissioner (Appeals), which has not been challenged. Moreover, the matter came up before Tribunal on two occasions and on both occasions, the matter was remanded and the appellant was held to be eligible for refund and was required to produce the documents for the purpose of sanctioning the refund claims. The stand of the Revenue in not providing interest that delay in sanction of refund claims was because of non-submission of documents. If the documents have already been produced and are not available for whatever reason and if assessee undertakes to produce the same, it does not mean that there was a conclusion by the Tribunal that no documents had been produced earlier. In view of the above, it is clear that the proposal for rejection of refund claims was not because of lack of documents, the appellant is eligible for interest as claimed by them. Issues involved:1. Refund claims rejection based on procedural grounds.2. Rejection of refund claims due to unjust enrichment and duty drawback.3. Rejection of interest on refund claims.4. Discrepancy regarding submission of shipping bills and relevant documents.Issue 1: Refund claims rejection based on procedural grounds:Four refund claims were filed seeking refund of Excise duty paid on Diesel Oil Engines. Initially rejected for not following Chapter X procedure. Commissioner (Appeals) later held refund with interest admissible, a decision not challenged by Revenue. However, a Show Cause Notice issued later proposed rejection on unjust enrichment grounds. Tribunal remanded the matter to original authority to decide on refund after appellant produces necessary documents.Issue 2: Rejection of refund claims due to unjust enrichment and duty drawback:Show Cause Notice proposed rejection based on unjust enrichment and duty drawback as appellant had claimed duty drawback. Original adjudicating authority rejected refund claims citing non-production of shipping bills and other grounds. Appellant's appeal was allowed by Tribunal, emphasizing the need for proper documentation and remanding the matter to original authority.Issue 3: Rejection of interest on refund claims:Original adjudicating authority sanctioned refund claims but denied interest, stating documents were produced post-Tribunal order. Appellant argued non-submission of shipping bills was not a valid issue. Tribunal found interest rejection unjustified as the delay was not due to lack of documents, especially since the matter had been previously settled in appellant's favor by Commissioner (Appeals).Issue 4: Discrepancy regarding submission of shipping bills and relevant documents:Appellant contended that the delay in refund processing was not due to non-submission of documents, as Show Cause Notice did not mention any deficiency in this regard. Tribunal noted that documents were submitted with refund claims and if unavailable, appellant's undertaking to produce them did not imply non-submission earlier. Consequently, Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting interest as claimed by the appellant.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal with consequential relief, emphasizing that the delay in refund processing was not due to lack of documents and that the appellant was eligible for interest as claimed.