2011 (5) TMI 125 - AT - Central Excise

Refund - Captive consumption of RCC pols - Held that the appellants have complied with the requirement of Rule 233B and that rejection of the refunds on this ground cannot be sustained - As regards the rejection on the ground of non-production of original duty paying documents, while noting that the assessees had submitted that they had filed original documents (TR.6 challans) - Fresh orders are to be passed after extending a reasonable opportunity to the assesses of being heard in their defence and producing such documents as they deem fit to establish payment of duty of the amount of which refund is being sought - Appeal is allowed by way of remand

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of refund claims for duty paid on RCC poles captively consumed.
2. Rejection of refund claims based on the address of the letter of protest.
3. Non-production of original duty paying documents by the Electricity Board.

Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with the validity of refund claims for duty paid on RCC poles captively consumed. The appellants' claims for refund were rejected due to alleged deficiencies in compliance with the rules. One issue was the address of the letter of protest, which was directed to the Superintendent of Central Excise instead of the Asst. Collector of Central Excise. Another issue was the non-production of original duty paying documents by the Electricity Board.

2. The judge considered the compliance with Rule 233B regarding the address of the letter of protest. Referring to previous tribunal orders, the judge held that the letter addressed to the Superintendent of Central Excise substantially complied with the rule. Citing cases like ICEM Engineering Co.P.Ltd. Vs CCE and Collector of C.Ex. New Delhi Vs Unik Springs (I) Faridabad, the judge ruled in favor of the appellants, stating that the rejection of refunds based on this ground was not sustainable.

3. Regarding the non-production of original duty paying documents, the judge noted the appellants' submission that they had filed original documents (TR.6 challans). The judge decided to remand Appeal No.E/707/09 to the adjudicating authority for further consideration. The judge instructed the authority to review documents such as originals of Chartered Accountant's certificate, audited balance sheet, and bank scrolls of the link/focal bank showing deposits in the PLA account. The decision was based on the tribunal's ruling in the assessee's own case Superintending Engineer Vs CCE Trichy. The judge ordered fresh orders to be passed after providing a reasonable opportunity for the assesses to be heard in their defense and to produce necessary documents to establish the payment of duty for which a refund was sought. As a result, Appeal No.E/207/09 was allowed by way of remand, while Appeal No.208/2009 was allowed in full.