Appellate Tribunal allows appeal, refunds excise duty due to double payment on subsequent export.

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI allowed the appeal, setting aside the rejection of the refund claim of excise duty by the Commissioner (Appeals-II). The Tribunal found that the duty was paid twice due to subsequent export under a different ARE-1, and procedural requirements did not apply as the goods were not initially cleared. Criticizing the lower authorities for overlooking crucial facts, the Tribunal emphasized the lack of evidence supporting procedural violations and ordered the appeal to be allowed with any consequential benefits as per the law.

---

---

Issues:
Refund claim of excise duty rejection under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The appellant-assessee challenged the rejection of its refund claim of excise duty by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-II). The appellant had cancelled an export under ARE-1 and filed a refund claim for the erroneously paid duty. The appellant argued that the goods were subsequently exported under a different ARE-1 after payment of central excise duty. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim citing procedural lapses and lack of evidence. The rejection was based on the delay in informing the Range officer about the cancellation of export, discrepancies in stock accounts, and failure to provide substantial evidence. The Commissioner (Appeals-II) upheld the rejection order, noting the absence of concrete evidence supporting the appellant's contentions.

Upon appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI, the Tribunal analyzed the case. The Tribunal observed that the goods were intended for clearance on duty payment, not on bond, and that the duty was paid twice due to the subsequent export under a different ARE-1. The Tribunal found that the procedural requirements did not apply in this scenario as the goods were not cleared initially due to cancellation. The Tribunal criticized the lower authorities for overlooking crucial factual aspects and not considering the duty payment already made. The Tribunal highlighted the lack of evidence regarding additional raw materials procurement, clearance of goods outside books, transportation details, and unrecorded cash transactions.

The Tribunal emphasized that the Revenue should have investigated the reason behind the refund claim, which was the cancellation of the initial ARE-1. The Tribunal noted the lack of proper enquiry by the Revenue regarding the daily stock account discrepancies and the absence of evidence supporting allegations of procedural violations. Ultimately, the Tribunal held that the impugned order was unsustainable and set it aside, allowing the appeal with any consequential benefits as per the law. The order was pronounced in the open court on 06.05.2019 by MR P. DINESHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI.

---