Appellate Tribunal directs refund on CENVAT credit appeal, accepts bank statements as proof.

The Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Principal Additional Director General's order rejecting the refund claim against unutilized CENVAT credit due to lack of invoice details on FIRCs. The Tribunal held that the bank's self-certified statements, supported by a reconciliation statement, should suffice for processing the refund, contrary to the earlier decision. The respondent-department was directed to refund the amount with applicable interest within three months, following a precedent set by the CESTAT, Bangalore Bench.

---

---

Issues:
Rejection of refund claim against unutilised CENVAT credit due to lack of invoice details on FIRCs received from the bank.

Analysis:
The appellant, an exporter of 'Information Technology Software Services,' filed refund claims for two quarters, which were rejected by the first adjudicating authority and confirmed by the Principal Additional Director General (PADG) on the ground that FIRCs did not bear invoice numbers. The rejection was based on the belief that the appellant's claim of FIRCs not showing export invoice details as per bank policy was unacceptable. The rejection order was challenged before the Appellate Tribunal.

During the appeal, the appellant's counsel cited a circular stating that linkage between export invoice and remittance is not required when FIRCs are issued on a consolidated basis. They argued that self-certification of FIRCs should suffice, and there is no need for a banker's certificate. Refund should be allowed based on certified statements of the claimant, supported by a reconciliation statement showing export invoice details. The appellant sought a refund with applicable interest.

The respondent-department's representative supported the rejection, stating that no evidence was presented to establish the bank's policy of not providing invoice details against FIRCs. They argued that the PADG's order did not require interference.

After a thorough review of the case record and the appellant's bank letter, the Tribunal found that the rejection based on the lack of invoice details on FIRCs was contrary to procedural requirements. The bank's self-certified statements, along with a reconciliation statement, should suffice for processing the refund. Referring to a precedent set by the CESTAT, Bangalore Bench, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the PADG's order and directing the respondent-department to refund the amount with applicable interest within three months.

This detailed analysis highlights the key legal issues, arguments presented by both parties, relevant precedents, and the Tribunal's decision, providing a comprehensive understanding of the judgment.

---