2013 (7) TMI 52 - AT - Central Excise

Refund on export of goods - manufacturer of bulk drugs and export of final product viz. Ethambutol. As per Adjudicating Authority two grounds for rejection of refund claim - Appellant has not produced any basic documents to indicate that they have exported the goods and another ground is that the exported goods cannot be cleared under bond/LUT. - Held that - Lower Authorities have not considered the decisions in the case of Tuffropes Pvt. Ltd. 2008 (9) TMI 631 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD and in the case of Well Known Polyesters Ltd. 2011(1)TMI 664-CESTAT, AHMEDABAD - Lower Authorities have not appreciated the factual position which needs to be considered by them in correct perspective as also the decisions of the Tribunal cited earlier and the judgment of Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Repro India Ltd. 2007 (12) TMI 209 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT . - Matter is remanded to adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue afresh after following the principles of natural justice and also all the documents which are produced and will be produced by the appellant in support of his refund claim.

Summary

Issues:
Refund of unutilized CENVAT Credit on exported goods.

Analysis:
The appellant, a manufacturer of bulk drugs exporting Ethambutol, sought refund of CENVAT Credit on duty paid inputs used in the exported product. Lower authorities denied the refund citing lack of export proof and ineligibility for bond/LUT clearance. However, the appellant submitted detailed documents showing manufacturing and export details, availing CVD and SAD CENVAT Credit. The judge noted non-consideration of relevant precedents like Tuffropes Pvt. Ltd. and Well Known Polyesters Ltd. by the lower authorities. Emphasizing the need for a fresh review, the judge set aside the orders, directing reconsideration by the adjudicating authority in line with natural justice principles, considering all submitted documents and cited decisions.

The judge highlighted the importance of reconsidering the issue in light of the appellant's submissions and legal precedents, stressing the need for a fair review process. The impugned orders were overturned, and the appeals were allowed for remand, emphasizing the adjudicating authority's duty to reevaluate the matter fairly and in compliance with natural justice principles.