2004 (12) TMI 594

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....that they have paid Rs. 56,99,522/-. Apart from the payment part they could not produce any document to show the credit and debit of duty of Rs. 28,49,762/- which they claimed to have been availed under Rule 56A. It is found that the claimant submitted GPI copies for verification pertains to approximately two years period out of the period of eight years and no corresponding PLA register is submitted for verification. On the same way PLA register for some period is submitted but no corresponding GPI copies were submitted for verification. Apart from this no RG 23 Part I and II register is submitted to verify the proforma credit of Rs. 28,49,762/-" and the same has been upheld by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) on the following ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat for a certain period they had produced gate passes but the relevant PLA was not available. Here also I do not find if there was any chance for the Assistant Commissioner to corelate the available GP's with the corresponding debit entries in the PLA. The absence of gate passes will virtually make it impossible to corelate it with PLA debit entries. Simply stating that certain documents are relevant and or not relevant, the appellants can't absolve themselves from the responsibility cast upon them as it is they who have submitted the refund claim. Whether a period of 16 years is involved or otherwise is quite irrelevant in this case. When the appellants had pursued the matter right up to the Supreme Court, it was their responsibility t....