9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2003 (4) TMI 440 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
Claim for refund under Rule 173L on duty paid material received back. Analysis: The lower authority rejected the refund claim on various grounds. Firstly, the appellant failed to produce a duplicate copy of Invoice No. 1149, raising concerns about the substantiation of goods receipt and the possibility of Modvat credit misuse. Secondly, doubts were raised regarding the re-manufacturing of goods of the same quality from re-melted plastics. Thirdly, inconsistencies in the duty paid amounts and the claimed refund amount were noted, along with a lack of correlation between remade goods and documents. Lastly, the lower authority found that scrapped pipes could not be transformed into pipes conforming to IS specifications, leading to the rejection of the claim. The Commissioner (Appeals) reviewed the case and found that while D3 for Invoice No. 1149 was verified, there was no endorsement for D3 No. 27 (Invoice No. 1150). Despite this, the Commissioner concluded that the refund should be limited to goods covered under Invoice No. 1149, irrespective of the availability of the duplicate copy of the invoice. The Commissioner also noted that the customer was not a registered manufacturer, eliminating concerns about Modvat credit. Upon further examination, it was determined that the rejection of the refund claim related to Invoice No. 1150 based on the non-verification of D3 No. 27 was beyond the scope of the show cause notice, rendering it invalid. Additionally, since the compulsory verification of D3 was abolished, claims on D3 No. 26 and D3 No. 27 should be treated equally. As the claim on D3 No. 26 was accepted and not contested by the Revenue, the rejection of the claim on D3 No. 27 was deemed unsustainable. Conclusively, the appeal was allowed, and the order of rejection by the lower authorities was set aside. The appellant was granted consequential benefits following the decision to uphold the refund entitlement based on the findings and legal considerations presented during the appeal process.
|
