2004 (8) TMI 438 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Refund claim rejection due to non-receipt of duplicate AR-4s

1. Issue 1: Refund Claim Rejection
The appeal was filed against the order upholding the rejection of a refund claim by the Commissioner of Appeals, Central Excise & Customs. The appellant's advocate argued that the claim was rejected because the duplicate copies of AR-4s were not received by the Customs office, and it was the responsibility of the Customs officials to send these copies. The advocate contended that the party should not be penalized for the negligence of the Customs officials, especially when the fact of export was admitted by the Adjudicating Authority.

2. Issue 2: Duty to Submit Documents
The Respondent's representative argued that it was the duty of the appellant to submit the duplicate copies of AR-4s along with the refund claim. Since the appellant failed to produce these copies, the adjudicating authority rightfully rejected the claim. The lack of submission of required documents was highlighted as the reason for the rejection.

3. Analysis of the Judgement
The Tribunal found that the refund claim was rejected solely because the duplicate AR-4s were not received by the Central Excise Rebate Sanctioning Authority from the Hilli Border Customs Office as required. The responsibility to send these copies was on the Customs officials, and their failure to do so should not result in penalizing the party. The Adjudicating Authority had acknowledged the fact of export and clearance of duty, emphasizing the fault of the Customs officials in not sending the duplicate copies as required. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the original order and providing consequential relief to the appellant.

In conclusion, the judgment focused on the failure of the Customs officials to send the necessary documents, leading to the rejection of the refund claim. The Tribunal emphasized that the party should not be held responsible for the lapses of the Customs authority and granted relief to the appellant based on the admitted facts of export and duty clearance.