2016 (12) TMI 1520 - AT - Central Excise

Refund - Classification of Di-calcium Phosphate - Held that - I find from the records viz. letter dt. 20.07.2006 that the said amount has been claimed as paid by debiting the CENVAT credut amount towards discharge of duty on disputed product Di-calcium Phosphate which was later classified as an exempted product - Whereas in the letter dated 20.07.2006 the appellant had categorically submitted that the credit of 10, 96, 976/- involved in the raw materials/inputs used in the manufacture Di-calcium Phosphate has been debited by them while computing the refund amount - Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues Involved: Refund claim eligibility based on debiting CENVAT credit amount on inputs used in the manufacture of exempted product.

Analysis:
1. Facts of the Case: The appellant, engaged in manufacturing Di-calcium Phosphate, filed a refund claim of &8377; 17,91,864/- after a classification change to an exempted product. The claim was rejected by the department as the amount was considered as CENVAT credit on inputs used in manufacturing.

2. Appellant's Submission: The appellant debited &8377; 10,96,976/- (credit on inputs) while claiming the refund of duty on the final product. They provided details in a letter dated 20.07.2006 to support this claim.

3. Revenue's Argument: The Revenue contended that there was no evidence of debiting the credit of &8377; 10,96,976/- on raw materials used in manufacturing Di-calcium Phosphate, despite the appellant's claim.

4. Judgment: After hearing both sides, the tribunal found that the appellant had claimed to debit the amount of &8377; 10,96,976/- related to raw materials/inputs while computing the refund. The lower authorities had denied the refund based on a misconception. The tribunal decided to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority to verify if the appellant had indeed debited the amount while claiming the refund. If the debiting was related to the credit on inputs/raw materials used in manufacturing the exempted product, the appellant would be eligible for the refund.

5. Conclusion: The appeal was allowed for remand to the adjudicating authority for verification purposes. The judgment highlights the importance of proper documentation and evidence in refund claims, emphasizing the need for clarity on the debiting of credits related to inputs used in manufacturing exempted products.