2005 (8) TMI 218 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal allows appeal for refund claim due to consignee name discrepancy

The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by M/s. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. regarding the rejection of their refund claim amounting to Rs. 2,15,951. The ... Cenvat/Modvat - Duty paying documents Issues:Refund claim rejection based on consignee name discrepancy in duty paying documents.Analysis:The appeal was filed against an Order-in-Appeal rejecting a refund claim of Rs. 2,15,951/- by M/s. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. The claim was based on receiving raw materials under duty paying documents with the consignee name wrongly mentioned as Dholka instead of Kadi. The appellants debited the amount as directed by Excise authorities. The adjudicating authority and Order-in-Appeal upheld the rejection of the claim.The appellants argued that the inputs were actually received and consumed in their Kadi factory, supported by a certificate. They claimed the mistake in the Gate Pass prepared at Dholka was a condonable procedural error, as all three factories belonged to one owner, and the consignee was the supplier. They cited a decision stating procedural lapses are condonable as long as inputs were received and utilized in manufacturing without mala fides.The Departmental Representative highlighted the Commissioner of Appeals' observations, emphasizing the invalidity of documents due to consignee discrepancies. Referring to a case law precedent, it was noted that credit was not admissible when the Gate Pass was not in the appellant's name or endorsed in their favor, even if the supplier confirmed receipt of inputs. However, the Tribunal found the present case distinguishable as goods were received and consumed at Kadi, despite Gate Passes being mistakenly prepared at Dholka. Considering all three units belonged to one manufacturer, the Tribunal deemed the rejection of the claim erroneous and allowed the appeal.