2017 (4) TMI 376 - AT - Central Excise

Charitable Trust - Refund claim - N/N. 32/2005-C.E., dated 17-8-2005 - rejection on account of not producing the required documents - Held that - refund has been rejected merely on technical ground - the appellant has produced the certificates signed by the Chartered Engineer and countersigned by the District Collector which is sufficient to prove that the appellant has used the cement and steel in the construction of houses - refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
Refund claim rejection due to lack of required documents under charitable trust activities; Interpretation of government notifications for Tsunami victims relief; Legal sustainability of impugned order.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against the rejection of a refund claim by a registered Charitable Trust engaged in philanthropic activities, specifically in the rehabilitation of Tsunami victims. The appellant had constructed houses for the victims with approval from the Government of Kerala. The dispute arose when the department alleged that the appellant did not provide documents evidencing payment of duty along with the claim. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claim for not producing the required documents, a decision upheld by the Commissioner, leading to the present appeal.

During the hearing, the appellant's counsel argued that the impugned order ignored the duty paying documents submitted by the appellant, which included a letter of supplies of cement and steel. The refund claim was not filed under Section 11B of the Act but was based on the government's policy decision to assist Tsunami victims as per specific notifications and circulars. The counsel highlighted that the prescribed refund amount was unrelated to the actual duty paid on steel and cement used in construction.

On the other hand, the department's representative reiterated the findings of the impugned order. Upon considering the submissions, the Tribunal found that the refund rejection was unjustified as the appellant had provided certificates signed by a Chartered Engineer and countersigned by the District Collector, proving the use of cement and steel in house construction. The Tribunal observed that the refund claim was in line with government notifications aimed at aiding Tsunami victims and was rejected on technical grounds. Consequently, the impugned order was deemed legally unsustainable, and the appeal of the appellant was allowed with consequential relief.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the rejection of the refund claim, emphasizing the sufficiency of the evidence provided by the appellant and the applicability of government notifications in supporting charitable activities for disaster-affected individuals.