2019 (4) TMI 425

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... had a stock of 4255.616 Sqmt. Of Finished Polished Granites Tiles and slabs, on which as directed by the Revenue, they deposited excise duty of Rs. 8,48,193/- pursuant to which NOC was issued for debonding. Thereafter, the appellant exported the said entire stock of 4255.616 sqmt. Of polished granites tiles and slabs. The appellant filed application for refund of the said amount of duty of Rs. 8,48,193/- under Section 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 enclosing therewith the following documents:- (i) Photocopy of NOC issued for debonding showing deposit of duty of Rs. 8,48,193/- (ii) Photocopy of cenvat credit register and TR-6 Challan evidencing deposit of duty of Rs. 8,48,193/-. (iii) Photocopy of stock register showing stock as on....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nufactured by them prior to the date of the debonding were subsequently exported. The Tribunal also noticed that Revenue have not properly examined the evidences led by the appellant. Accordingly, this Tribunal remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority to verify the documents and the claim, and allow the refund accordingly. 5. Pursuant to the remand vide a Order-in-Appeal dated 17.3.2011, the Adjudicating Authority called for a report from the Range Superintendent, who vide report dated 21.02.2013 submitted the verification report and informed that the appellant has submitted the following documents: - 5.1 Original Annexure-77- Daily Stock Register for 100% EOU. 5.2 Photocopy of invoices nos. 1681 dated 23.10.2008, No. 1682 dated....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion of the records submitted by the assessee, it has been found that the goods lying in the stock on 17.10.2008 was subsequently exported by the assessee. Therefore, I hold that as per the Hon'ble CESTAT New Delhi's Final Order No. A/58543/2013-SM (DR) dated 11.12.2013, the claimant is entitled for refund. I also find that the Final Order No. A/58543/2013-SM dated 11.12.2013 has already been accepted by the competent authority on 16.01.2014". 5.6 I also find that the claim is within time limit and clause of unjust enrichment is not applicable in this case, as the refund claim is consequential one. Therefore, following the principles of natural justice, I am inclined to hold that the consequential refund of Rs. 8,48,193/- is admiss....