Procedural lapse in e-BRC filing cannot defeat Cenvat refund when manual BRCs support export proceeds realisation.

Refund of Cenvat credit under Rule 5 could not be denied solely because e-BRC was not produced where manual BRCs were available and the record showed that e-BRCs were not being issued for the relevant transactions. The requirement of e-BRC was treated as procedural, while the substantive condition was realisation of export proceeds. The proper course was to verify the manual BRCs and then re-determine the refund claim. The refusal to grant refund on that purely procedural ground was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of Cenvat credit could be denied solely because e-BRC was not produced and whether manual BRCs could be examined as compliance for the refund claim under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis: Refund under Rule 5 is intended to grant relief where export proceeds have been realised. The requirement of filing e-BRC is only a procedural requirement. Where the exporter has produced manual BRCs and material exists showing that the banking system was not issuing e-BRCs for the relevant transactions, non-production of e-BRC alone cannot defeat an otherwise admissible refund claim. The proper course is to verify the manual BRCs and then re-determine the claim.

Conclusion: Denial of refund solely for want of e-BRC was not justified. The matter was remanded for examination of the manual BRCs and fresh decision on the refund claim in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The refusal to grant refund on a purely procedural ground was set aside, and the refund claim was sent back for reconsideration on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural requirement cannot by itself defeat a substantive refund claim when the underlying condition for eligibility is otherwise shown to be satisfied.

---