2013 (10) TMI 1407 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Appeal against Order-in-Appeal, Refund of Cenvat Credit under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, Verification of conditions for refund, Eligibility for refund under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Refund Claim under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004:
The Revenue appealed against the Order-in-Appeal rejecting their appeal against the refund of Cenvat Credit amounting to Rs. 28,79,05,870 sanctioned to M/s. Automobile Corporation of Goa Ltd. Honda. The Revenue contended that the adjudicating authority did not verify if all conditions under Notification No.5/2006-CE(NT) were met for granting the refund. The lower appellate authority upheld the refund, stating that the claims were prima facie admissible under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, subject to documentary substantiation.

Verification and Eligibility for Refund:
The history of the case involved multiple rounds of litigation where the lower appellate authority directed verification of refund claims by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner verified the claims and sanctioned the refund after excluding a time-barred amount. The lower appellate authority upheld the sanction of refund, emphasizing that the claims had been audited and verified at various levels. The Revenue contended that the Assistant Commissioner did not verify the claim as required by Notification No.5/2006.

Judgement:
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the lower appellate authority's order, which upheld the sanction of refund after thorough verification and audit. The Tribunal noted that the case had already undergone scrutiny up to the CESTAT level, with the appellant's claim consistently upheld. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, stating that if any defects were found in the refund applications, they should have been raised during the pre-audit stage. As no such objections were raised, the Tribunal concluded that the Revenue's appeal lacked merit and therefore rejected it.

Separate Judgement by Judges:
No separate judgement was delivered by the judges in this case.