2017 (1) TMI 83 - AT - Central Excise

Refund - Rule 5 of the CER, 2004 - N No. 5/2006 CE - Held that - the appellant have furnished all the relevant documents to the satisfaction of the sanctioning authority and the sanctioning authority has clearly held that the appellant has fulfilled all the conditions stipulated in the Notification 5/2006 dated 14.03.2006 and there is no legally sustainable ground on which validly sanctioned refund order should be set aside and therefore in my considered view, the findings returned by the Commissioner (Appeals) on merit needs to be set aside and I set aside the same - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of refund claim under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 read with Notification No. 5/2006.
2. Review of refund order by Commissioner (Appeals) and subsequent appeal.
3. Requirement of show-cause notice under Section 11A for recovery of erroneously granted refund.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed a refund claim under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 read with Notification No. 5/2006 for accumulated cenvat credit. The sanctioning authority allowed a refund, but the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order-in-original. The issue was whether the refund was in compliance with the rules. The Tribunal found that the original authority had satisfied the conditions of the Notification, and the appellant had provided all relevant documents. The Commissioner (Appeals) wrongly observed that the authority failed to show the use of input or input services in the manufacture of exported goods. The Tribunal held that the refund order was validly sanctioned, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

2. The appellant argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) wrongly set aside the refund order. The appellant had fulfilled all conditions stipulated in the Notification, and the sanctioning authority had considered all relevant documents. The appellant also contended that the review order grounds did not support the appeal decision. The Tribunal, considering previous judgments, found in favor of the appellant, setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals) decision.

3. The issue of the requirement of a show-cause notice under Section 11A for recovery of erroneously granted refund was raised. The learned AR argued that no such notice was necessary, and the appellate authority's order was sufficient for recovery. However, the Tribunal did not delve deeply into this issue in the judgment.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the refund claim was validly sanctioned, all conditions were met, and the Commissioner (Appeals) decision was set aside. The appellant's appeal was allowed based on the facts and previous Tribunal orders, providing consequential relief.