2010 (6) TMI 748 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim under Central Excise Rules, 1944 without specifying relevant provisions - Rejection of refund claim by Original Adjudicating Authority - Appeal allowed by Commissioner (Appeals) - Revenue's appeal against Commissioner's decision.

Analysis:
The case involves a refund claim by M/s. Anjani Synthetics for an amount lying in their RG 23A-Pt-II register due to the introduction of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The show cause notice highlighted that the claim was filed without specifying relevant provisions and mentioned that modvat credit can only be used as per Rule 57F(12) and refund, if any, would be granted under Rule 57F(13). The Original Adjudicating Authority rejected the claim for non-compliance with Rule 57F(13). On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the claim, stating that the rejection went beyond the show cause notice's scope, which focused on the lack of provision other than Rule 57F(13) for granting the refund.

The Revenue appealed against the Commissioner's decision, and during the hearing, no representative from M/s. Anjani Synthetics appeared. The respondents had claimed a refund under Rule 57F(13) without specifying any provision initially. They argued that due to the Compounded Levy Scheme, the accumulated credit could not be utilized. However, they failed to provide evidence supporting their eligibility under Rule 57F(13) or Notification No. 29/96. The Commissioner's decision to allow the appeal based on the absence of specific rules was questioned, as the show cause notice clearly indicated that the refund could only be considered under Rule 57F(13).

The Member (T) disagreed with the Commissioner's view, emphasizing that the respondents did not cite the relevant rule or provide evidence of eligibility under Rule 57F(13). While the rejection based on lack of evidence was justified, the new argument regarding eligibility under Notification No. 29/96 was not addressed by either authority. To ensure justice, the matter was remanded to the Original Adjudicating Authority to assess the eligibility of the respondents for a refund under Notification No. 29/96. The impugned order was set aside for further examination based on the new ground raised by the respondents.

In conclusion, the judgment highlights the importance of specifying relevant provisions when claiming a refund under Central Excise Rules, ensuring that evidence is provided to support the claim's eligibility under the specified rule. It also emphasizes the need for authorities to consider all grounds raised by the parties for a thorough and just decision.