Tribunal grants refund claim, citing excess duty payment, lack of rebate, and supporting evidence.

The Tribunal overturned the rejection of the refund claim under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, emphasizing the appellant's excess duty payment on cancelled invoices and non-claim of rebate. The decision highlighted the appellant's submission of documentary evidence and Chartered Accountant certification, which supported their position. The Tribunal found the department's failure to provide evidence contradicting the appellant's claim significant, leading to the allowance of the appeal with necessary reliefs.

---

---

Issues:
Rejection of refund claim under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for excess payment of excise duty on cancelled export invoices.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing and exporting automotive instruments, filed a refund claim for excess payment of Central Excise duty on two cancelled export invoices. The original authority rejected the claim citing lack of evidence for double duty payment and failure to follow prescribed cancellation procedures. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection, leading the appellant to appeal before the Tribunal.

The appellant's counsel argued that although the invoices were prepared, the goods were not exported due to quantity variation, resulting in subsequent clearance with correct invoices and duty payment. The appellant discovered the excess duty payment only after filing returns and submitted evidence including Gate Pass, ARE-1 copies, and Cenvat Ledger. The Range Officer's report questioned the appellant's claim, highlighting non-compliance with invoice cancellation procedures and lack of proof for double payment.

The counsel contended that the failure to inform the department about cancelled invoices should not justify withholding the excess duty refund. The appellant's Chartered Accountant certified the cancellation of invoices and excess duty payment, supported by rebate claim details. Citing a similar case precedent, the counsel sought allowance of the appeal.

The Authorized Representative supported the rejection, emphasizing the appellant's non-compliance with prescribed cancellation procedures and the lack of evidence for double duty payment. The Tribunal examined the case, noting the appellant's inadvertent statement about domestic clearance, while ARE-1 returns confirmed duty payment for exports. The Tribunal found the rejection unjustified, as the appellant had paid excess duty on cancelled invoices and not claimed rebate, contrary to departmental allegations.

During subsequent hearings, the department failed to produce evidence contradicting the appellant's claim of excess duty payment and non-claim of rebate. The Chartered Accountant's certificate further confirmed the excess payment and non-claim of rebate, aligning with the Tribunal's decision in a similar case. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with any necessary reliefs.

In conclusion, the Tribunal overturned the rejection of the refund claim, emphasizing the appellant's excess duty payment on cancelled invoices and non-claim of rebate, supported by documentary evidence and Chartered Accountant certification. The decision highlighted the department's failure to provide evidence to counter the appellant's claims, leading to the appeal's allowance with consequential reliefs.

---