2016 (1) TMI 842 - AT - Central Excise

Entitlement to Refund claim denied - whether the duty has been paid twice on the scrap and if so whether the appellant is entitled to the refund claim or not? - Held that - On the one hand the appellant is stating that the scrap only came back from job workers premises; that the enclosed invoices indicating that the removal has taken place under the assessee s own premises. The commissioner also observed that the appellant has admitted to have indulged in fabrication of invoice by showing thereon imaginary road tempo no., imaginary quantity/assessable value/ duty on scrap etc. After considering the facts and circumstances and after going through the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), no infirmity in the impugned order. - Decided against assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of refund claim by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals)
2. Payment of duty on scrap generated at job worker's premises
3. Entitlement to refund claim for duty paid erroneously

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the rejection of the refund claim by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) in a case where duty on scrap generated at the job worker's premises was paid twice, once by the job worker and once by the principal manufacturer. The appellant argued that duty is not payable by the principal manufacturer on scrap generated at the job worker's premises, citing various judgments in support of this proposition.

2. The appellant contended that duty should not be paid by the principal manufacturer on scrap generated at the job worker's premises, as established by legal precedents. The Tribunal noted that the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim for refund, as the invoices did not show double payment of duty and there were discrepancies in the documentation provided. The Tribunal also highlighted that the appellant had fabricated invoices, indicating imaginary quantities and duty payments, which raised doubts about the legitimacy of the refund claim.

3. The Tribunal analyzed the arguments presented by both parties and concluded that the duty was not paid twice on the scrap generated at the job worker's premises. The Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's claim for a refund of duty paid erroneously, considering the discrepancies in the documentation and the fabrication of invoices by the appellant. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the decision of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) to reject the refund claim.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues raised in the case, the legal arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's decision based on the evidence and legal principles discussed during the proceedings.