2004 (4) TMI 368 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Refund claims rejection due to non-production of original duty-paying documents.

Analysis:
The Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB) was compelled to pay duty on Pre-stressed Concrete Poles as per the Central Excise department's demand from May 1981 to September 1987. Subsequently, it was established that MSEB was not the manufacturer but the job workers were. MSEB then filed refund claims for various periods, most of which were approved except for two claims totaling Rs. 6,11,966.71 and Rs. 1,86,222/-, rejected for not submitting original duty-paying documents. The appellant argued that the necessary documents were already with the department, and copies were filed with the Assistant Collector. The departmental authorities rejected the claims citing non-production of original documents. The appellant referred to relevant case laws supporting their stance.

The Department reiterated that without proof of duty payment, refund claims cannot be accepted. They argued that the original duty-paying documents were not available for verification. However, the Tribunal examined a letter from the Central Excise Superintendent dated 25-4-94, which stated that the required documents had been transmitted to the Assistant Collector for necessary action. The Tribunal found discrepancies in the lower authorities' findings and noted that no documents were available for verification for a specific period, contrary to the contents of the letter. The Tribunal held that the departmental correspondence favored the assessee, and it was unjust to burden them with further evidence of duty payment as it was well-reflected in the department's records. The Tribunal allowed the refund claims, emphasizing that the appellant, being a public body, had no oblique motives. The orders of the lower authorities were set aside, and the claims were approved. The proper officer was directed to implement the order within two months.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant, and the refund claims were approved based on the facts presented in the departmental correspondence, overriding the requirement for original duty-paying documents.