2009 (1) TMI 697 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
Appeal against Order-in-Appeal Nos. 146 & 147/2008 dated 31-3-2008 u/s Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

Grounds of Appeal by Revenue:
- Non-satisfaction of conditions u/s Notification No. 05/2006-C.E. (N.T.) dated 14-3-2006 for refund claim.
- Ineligibility for refund due to value of export goods not meeting criteria.
- Error in sanctioning refund by Assistant Commissioner.

Decision by Commissioner (Appeals):
- Accepted Revenue's grounds and allowed appeal.

Grounds of Appeal by Appellant:
- Exclusion of job work clearance for determining total value of clearances.
- Claimed 100% export sales, satisfying conditions for refund.
- Allegation of denial of benefit by Commissioner (Appeals).
- Lack of verification of documentary evidence by Commissioner (Appeals).
- New ground raised by Revenue not entertained.
- Incorrect method of claiming erroneous refund.

Tribunal's Analysis:
- Original authority granted refund after verification.
- Disagreement by Revenue on fulfillment of condition No. 2(a) of Notification No. 5/2006.
- Dispute over inclusion of job charges in total clearances.
- Appellant's contention supported by SSI exemption Notification No. 8/2006.
- Emphasis on requirement of show cause notice for recovery of erroneous refund.
- Impugned order set aside, appeals allowed.

This judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore involved an appeal against Order-in-Appeal Nos. 146 & 147/2008 dated 31-3-2008 u/s Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Revenue raised concerns regarding non-satisfaction of conditions for refund claim, ineligibility due to value of export goods, and error in refund sanctioning. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted Revenue's grounds. The Appellant argued for exclusion of job work clearance, claimed 100% export sales, and criticized the denial of benefit by Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal analyzed the case, highlighting the disagreement over condition fulfillment and inclusion of job charges in total clearances. The Tribunal supported the appellant's contention and stressed the necessity of a show cause notice for erroneous refund recovery, ultimately setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeals.