2015 (4) TMI 312 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of refund claim - appellants have not produced proper evidence to substantiate their claim - Held that - The appellants have not produced the original documents neither before the adjudicating authority nor before the appellate authority. It was found that description of the goods mentioned in the invoices were not tallying with the exporter's invoices and also the goods removed on the strength of consignment notes and not by excise invoices. It is also brought out in the appellate order that let export orders were pre-dated to the date of manufacturer's invoice. - appellants in the past also had not produced relevant original documents before any of the authorities 2006 (10) TMI 334 - CESTAT, CHENNAI and even in the present appeal, they have failed to submit original documents. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
Refund claim disallowed due to lack of proper evidence.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against Order-in-Appeal No.9/2005, where the refund claim was disallowed by both the adjudication and appellate authorities due to insufficient evidence provided by the appellants. The authorities highlighted discrepancies in the documents submitted by the appellants, such as pre-dated invoices, mismatched descriptions and code numbers, and goods being cleared based on consignment notes instead of excise invoices. The authorities emphasized the importance of producing original documents to substantiate refund claims, as per Rule 11 of CER 2002. The lower authority correctly rejected the refund claim, as the evidence presented did not meet the required standards. The appellants failed to provide original documents before any authority, and this lack of compliance was noted in previous cases as well.

In a previous case related to the same issue, the Tribunal rejected the appeal due to the appellants' failure to produce necessary documents supporting the refund claim under Section 11B. The absence of original or duplicate copies of manufacturers' invoices raised doubts about the payment of excise duty on the goods. The pre-dated invoices provided by the appellants for export purposes were deemed insufficient evidence of duty payment, as there was no confirmation that the goods covered in these invoices were the same as those covered in later manufacturers' invoices. The appellants also failed to meet the requirements of Section 11BC of the Central Excise Act and did not comply with Section 11B conditions. Consequently, the lower appellate authority's decision was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.

Considering the consistent failure of the appellants to produce original documents in previous and current cases, the impugned order disallowing the refund claim was upheld. The Tribunal found no errors in the decision and dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of complying with procedural and evidentiary requirements when making refund claims under the Central Excise Act.