9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (10) TMI 334 - AT - Central Excise
Issues involved: Rejection of claim for refund of duty u/s 11B of the Central Excise Act based on lack of evidence of export of goods and non-compliance with procedural requirements.
Summary: Issue 1: Lack of evidence of export of goods The appeal was filed against the rejection of a refund claim for duty amount of Rs. 2,72,379 related to textile made-ups procured by the appellants. The appellants claimed they paid the duty price to the manufacturer and were entitled to a refund upon exporting the goods. However, they failed to produce original documents proving purchase and export of the goods. The original authority found that the appellants did not provide the required invoices and that the export invoices were dated prior to the manufacturer's invoices, casting doubt on the actual export of goods. The first appellate authority upheld these findings, leading to the rejection of the refund claim. Issue 2: Non-compliance with procedural requirements During the hearing, the appellants' counsel did not present the necessary documents to support the refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The absence of original or duplicate manufacturer invoices raised doubts about the payment of excise duty on the goods. The pre-dated export invoices provided by the appellants were deemed insufficient to prove duty payment, as they did not align with the manufacturer's invoices. The lack of evidence of goods exported by the appellants and failure to meet the substantive requirements of the proviso to Section 11BC of the Act led to the dismissal of the appeal. The appellants also failed procedurally to comply with the conditions of Section 11B, resulting in the affirmation of the lower appellate authority's decision to reject the refund claim. In conclusion, due to the lack of evidence of export and non-compliance with procedural and substantive requirements, the appellate tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claim, and the appeal was dismissed on 3-11-2006.
|
