2016 (11) TMI 353 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - exemption under N/N. 108/95-CE - production of certificate for claiming exemption - Held that - the production of certificate after the clearance of the goods is only a procedural lapse and will not vitiate its genuiness and acceptability for the purpose of clearances with benefit of N/N. 108/95 and by implication for the purposes of refund of duty paid by mistake - refund to be granted - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility for Excise Duty exemption under Notification No. 108/95-CE.
2. Rejection of refund claim due to non-compliance with certificate requirements.
3. Appeal against rejection of refund claim.

Eligibility for Excise Duty exemption under Notification No. 108/95-CE:
The appellants supplied goods to M/s MPPKVCL as a sub-contractor and paid Excise Duty under specific invoice numbers. Upon realizing their eligibility for Excise Duty exemption under Notification No. 108/95-CE, they filed a refund claim. The appellants submitted a certificate from M/s MPPKVCL, signed by relevant authorities, fulfilling the conditions of the notification. However, the adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim citing non-production of the required certificate before goods clearance. The Commissioner (A) upheld this decision stating that the certificate did not meet the stipulated conditions, emphasizing the need for approval by the Central Govt and countersignature by a Joint Secretary to GOI.

Rejection of refund claim due to non-compliance with certificate requirements:
The appellant's representative argued during the hearing that the necessary certificate had been issued before goods clearance and was submitted with the refund claim, as acknowledged by the original authority. Upon examining the certificate, signed by the Executive Head of the Project Implementing Authority and the Secretary (Energy) of the Government of Madhya Pradesh, the tribunal found it compliant with Notification No. 108/95-CE. The tribunal opined that the post-clearance submission of the certificate was a procedural lapse that did not affect its genuineness or acceptability for availing the exemption and refund of mistakenly paid duty.

Appeal against rejection of refund claim:
After hearing both sides, the tribunal concluded that the certificate's delayed production did not invalidate its authenticity for claiming the benefits under Notification No. 108/95-CE. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the appeal, granting consequential benefits to the appellant. The operative part of the order was pronounced at the conclusion of the hearing.