2007 (12) TMI 127 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal remands case for further verification after refund claim denial. Burden of proof emphasized.

The Tribunal remanded the case for further verification and a speaking order after the appellant's refund claim of deemed credit under a compounded levy ... Because of compounded levy scheme appellant couldn’t utilize accumulated deemed credit – when scheme got withdrawn assessee was entitled to utilize deemed credit – credit could not be utilized & in the mean time good became exempted – question arise of cash refund of that credit– assessee is directed to produce evidence that they have not claimed drawback/rebate of the same before 10 years – matter remanded as circumstantial evidences are required to be considered in absence of direct evidence Issues:- Refund claim of deemed credit accumulated by a textile processing unit under compounded levy scheme.- Denial of refund claim by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on lack of documents proving no drawback or rebate availed.- Submission of documents by the appellant to support refund claim.- Applicability of Notification No.29/96 and Rule 57F of the Central Excise Rules.- Interpretation of circulars and notifications related to drawback claims.- Burden of proof on the claimant for refund eligibility.- Consideration of circumstantial evidence in absence of specific documents.- Decision to remand the matter for further verification and a speaking order.Analysis:The case involves an appeal against the denial of a refund claim by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding deemed credit accumulated by a textile processing unit under the compounded levy scheme. The appellant sought permission to utilize the accumulated credit for clearances of processed fabrics, but the claim was rejected based on the lack of documents proving no drawback or rebate availed. The appellant argued eligibility for a refund under Notification No.29/96 and Rule 57F of the Central Excise Rules, emphasizing they did not claim drawback or rebate during the relevant period.The appellant's advocate highlighted challenges in producing specific documents due to the time elapsed since the exports occurred. The advocate referred to relevant circulars and notifications regarding drawback claims, emphasizing the difficulty in providing certain proofs after a considerable period. The Tribunal acknowledged the complexity of verifying old records for both the appellant and the authorities involved.Considering the submissions, the Tribunal noted the favorable order by the Commissioner (Appeals) in a previous decision and emphasized the burden on the claimant to prove eligibility for a refund. The Tribunal recognized the challenge of proving the non-claim of drawback and suggested considering circumstantial evidence to support the claim. Ultimately, the Tribunal decided to set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order and remand the matter for further verification, allowing the appellant to submit additional evidence within a specified timeframe.The decision to remand the case for a detailed review and the allowance for additional evidence submission demonstrate a thorough consideration of the complexities involved in proving refund eligibility in the absence of specific documents. The Tribunal's approach ensures a fair assessment of the refund claim while balancing the burden of proof on the claimant and the practical challenges faced due to the passage of time.