2013 (12) TMI 1686 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Refund of duty paid by a 100% EOU upon de-bonding, denial of refund due to procedural violations including lack of registration under Central Excise Rules and failure to issue invoices, and the need for verification of exported goods.

In the judgment, Member (J) Archana Wadhwa addressed the issue of the appellant, a 100% EOU, seeking a refund of duty paid upon de-bonding. The authorities had denied the refund citing procedural violations such as non-registration under Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, and failure to issue invoices under Rule 11. However, it was noted that as a 100% EOU, the appellant could not have been registered under Central Excise Rules. Referring to precedent, the Tribunal's decision in CCE Jaipur II vs. Stainless India Ltd. was cited, where it was held that procedural lapses cannot stand if the final product was indeed exported. This decision was upheld by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in Union of India vs. Stainless India Ltd. The judgment also mentioned another relevant case, Alpha garments vs. CCE, New Delhi.

Regarding the verification of exported goods, the learned advocate submitted that evidence including stock registers and statutory records had been provided to show that goods manufactured post de-bonding were indeed exported. However, these documents were not examined by the lower authorities. In light of this, Member (J) Wadhwa set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for verification of the documents to determine if the goods available at the time of de-bonding were exported. If confirmed, the appellant would be entitled to the refund. The original adjudicating authority was directed to conduct this verification within two months from the date of receipt of the order, and the appeal was allowed accordingly.