2013 (11) TMI 1535 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of refund claim - Non production of relevant documents - Held that - Admittedly there is no order of original adjudicating authority rejecting the refund claim. - Dy. Commissioner s letter dated 16-6-2003 only conveyed to the assessee that in the absence of requisite documents having been placed on record their refund claim cannot be considered. This only means that the Revenue is feeling handicapped in proceeding ahead with the refund claim filed by the assessee. We also agree with the ld. Advocate that if the said letter has to be considered as an order rejecting the refund claim of the appellant there was no need for issuance of show cause notice subsequently on 28-6-2005. It is the said show cause notice which was culminated into an order passed by the original adjudicating authority which was the subject matter of the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the earlier correspondence dated 16-6-2003 (even though there were subsequent correspondences also) was not put to challenge cannot be appreciated. Accordingly we are constrained to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for consideration of the refund claim. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Refund of duty doubly paid by the appellant, rejection of refund claim by the original adjudicating authority, challenge against the rejection, interpretation of correspondence as rejection of refund claim, applicability of previous court decisions on the present case.

Analysis:
1. The dispute in the appeal revolves around the refund of duty doubly paid by the appellant. The refund claim was initially filed in 2002, followed by correspondence between the appellant and the jurisdictional Commissioner, Central Excise authority. The Asst. Commissioner requested documents, which the appellant provided, but the refund claim was still not considered.

2. The Dy. Commissioner emphasized the need for specific documents for the refund claim to proceed, leading to a show cause notice proposing rejection of the claim in 2005. The original adjudicating authority eventually rejected the claim. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) cited the appellant's failure to challenge the Dy. Commissioner's letter as grounds for rejecting the appeal, referencing specific court cases.

3. The appellate tribunal disagreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) by distinguishing the present case from the court decisions mentioned. It noted that there was no formal order rejecting the refund claim by the original adjudicating authority. The Dy. Commissioner's letter of 2003 only indicated the lack of necessary documents, not a rejection of the claim. The tribunal emphasized that the subsequent show cause notice and order were the actual rejection points.

4. The tribunal found that considering the 2003 letter as a rejection would make the show cause notice redundant. It highlighted the need for a formal order rejecting the claim before an appeal could be made. As there was no such order in this case, the tribunal set aside the previous decision and remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority for reconsideration within a specified timeframe.

5. The tribunal clarified that the correspondence indicating the need for documents did not equate to a rejection of the refund claim. It emphasized that the show cause notice and subsequent order were the actual rejection points. The tribunal's decision aimed to ensure a proper review of the refund claim by the original adjudicating authority without prematurely dismissing the appellant's claim.

6. Ultimately, the tribunal disposed of the appeal by setting aside the previous decision and instructing the original adjudicating authority to reevaluate the refund claim promptly, emphasizing the importance of following due process and issuing a formal rejection order before challenging the decision.