Refund under Notification 32/99-CE cannot be reduced by unsupported duty apportionment or evidentiary assumptions.

Notification No. 32/99-CE prescribed a post-clearance monthly refund mechanism based on deemed value addition and actual duty payment otherwise than through CENVAT credit. The refund could not be curtailed by an unsupported assumption that duty paid on the last day of the month should be attributed to a particular product, because the claim had to be processed from the records and the actual mode of payment. Splitting the refund claim without evidentiary basis was beyond the proper scope of processing the claim, so the refund could not be artificially reduced on conjecture.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claimed under Notification No. 32/99-CE could be curtailed by attributing the duty paid on the last day of the month to a particular product and by splitting the refund claim without supporting evidence.

Analysis: The notification provided a post-clearance monthly refund mechanism and fixed deemed value addition rates for the manufactured products. The claim was to be processed on the basis of records and actual payment made otherwise than through CENVAT credit. The first appellate authority had introduced an assumption that the duty paid on the last day of the month should be attributed to crates, even though the claim stated that the account current was used for discharge of duty on furniture. Such a segregation was not supported by evidence and was beyond the authority to make while processing the refund claim. Once entitlement was restricted to the actual payment through account current, the refund could not be artificially reduced by an unsupported apportionment.

Conclusion: The refund could not be restricted on the basis of an evidentiary assumption not borne out by the record, and the assessee was entitled to the full refund claimed.

---