1983 (2) TMI 317 - Commissioner - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of refund claim by Assistant Collector on grounds of provisional payment of duty and lack of supporting documents.
2. Allegation of non-disclosure of grounds leading to contravention of natural justice.
3. Dispute over the necessity of further enquiry by the Appellate authority.
4. Verification of submitted documents by the Assistant Collector.
5. Requirement of form D-3 declaration for duty relief under Notification No. 178/77.
6. Legal validity of Assistant Collector's order and the need for reconsideration.

Analysis:
The Assistant Collector rejected the refund claim citing two main reasons: first, the duty was paid on a provisional basis as indicated by the bills, and second, the appellant failed to provide necessary supporting documents. The appellant argued that the provisional nature of duty payment was not disclosed earlier, violating principles of natural justice. They contended that the Appellate authority should conduct further inquiries if needed. Regarding document submission, the appellant claimed that the documents required were not pre-requisites for duty relief under the relevant notification, and the Assistant Collector should have verified the submitted copies instead of rejecting them outright.

The Appellate authority acknowledged the lack of disclosure regarding the provisional duty payment ground as a violation of natural justice, but disagreed with the appellant's request for further inquiry, citing potential delays. It was noted that the submitted documents by the appellant were sufficient, and the Assistant Collector should have verified them instead of rejecting them. The authority also agreed with the appellant that form D-3 declaration was not mandatory for duty relief under the applicable notification, emphasizing the Assistant Collector's duty to ensure fulfillment of notification conditions through necessary inquiries.

Consequently, the Appellate authority found the Assistant Collector's order to be against natural justice and unsupported by facts. The order was set aside, and a reconsideration was directed, emphasizing adherence to natural justice principles and a thorough review of the case based on the observations provided. The decision aimed to rectify the procedural and substantive shortcomings in the Assistant Collector's initial ruling, ensuring a fair and accurate assessment of the refund claim.