2010 (10) TMI 570 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - Under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules - 100% EOU - Assessee have filed a photocopy of AR.I and shipping bills, in support of their claim, - The only grievance of the revenue is that these documents should be attested by the customs officer but as per Notification No. 5/2006, the assessee has to enclose the following documents - Held that - the respondent has put their signature on the photocopies only for the attestation of the said documents - As per the said Notification, the attestation of these documents by the customs officer is not required - Accordingly, the lower authorities have rightly examined the said documents and allowed the refund claim of the respondent - The appeal filed by the revenue is rejected.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against sanction of refund claim by lower authorities.

Analysis:
The case involves an appeal by the Revenue against the sanction of a refund claim to the respondents, who are 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) availing Cenvat credit on services. The respondents filed a refund claim of Rs. 56,121 for a specific period, supported by photocopies of AR.I and shipping bills certified by the concerned customs officers. The Revenue contended that the documents were not duly certified by customs officers but attested by the respondents themselves. The Revenue produced some documents for examination. The Advocate for the respondent argued that the documents were certified by customs officers, indicating the export of goods, justifying the refund sanction.

Upon examination, it was found that the only issue raised by the Revenue was the lack of attestation by customs officers on the documents. However, as per Notification No. 5/2006, the requirement was for copies of shipping bills to be certified by customs officers, which was fulfilled in this case. The Customs officer had certified that the goods were exported, and the respondents had signed the photocopies for attestation purposes, not requiring further certification by customs officers. The lower authorities rightly approved the refund claim based on these documents. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision, finding no fault in the order. The appeal by the Revenue was rejected, and the cross-objection was disposed of accordingly.