2018 (5) TMI 1411 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of Central Excise Duty - rejection on the ground that they have failed to provide the necessary documents and information as ordered by the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order dated 12/09/2017 - Held that - only on the ground that the appellant has not provided the necessary documents, as ordered by the Commissioner (Appeals) in his various orders on the refund claims filed by the appellant, the appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) got rejected and the appellant is before this Tribunal against these orders of the Commissioner (Appeals). Commissioner (Appeals) is right in dismissing the appeal of the appellant as the necessary documents, which have been ordered by Commissioner (Appeals) to be presented before the Adjudicating Authority for consideration of the refund claims were not submitted by the appellant and, therefore, the appeal before this Tribunal appears to be pre-mature and deserve to be rejected with the direction that Original Adjudicating Authority will undertake a fresh denovo adjudication. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claims for central excise duty under Notification No. 15/2010 - rejection by Assistant Commissioner due to shortcomings in refund claims - appellant's failure to provide necessary documents - appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) rejected - appeal before Tribunal.

Analysis:
The appellant filed refund claims for central excise duty under Notification No. 15/2010 for duty-free clearances of products required for setting up a solar power plant. However, delays in obtaining essentiality certificates led to the appellant paying duty on cleared products. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claims citing various shortcomings, including failure to provide essential information such as excise duty details, notification references, and evidence of exemption eligibility.

During the hearing, it was revealed that the Commissioner (Appeals) had previously rejected the appellant's appeal for not submitting necessary documents as directed. The Commissioner had ordered the submission of specific documents like evidence of application for certificates, exemption certificates matching central excise invoices, and compliance with notification conditions. The Commissioner's rejection was based on the appellant's failure to comply with these document requirements.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision to dismiss the appeal, emphasizing the importance of submitting the required documents for consideration of refund claims. Since the appellant had not provided the necessary documents as directed, the Tribunal deemed the appeal premature and directed a fresh adjudication by the Original Adjudicating Authority upon submission of the specified documents. The appeals were allowed for remand, and the miscellaneous application was disposed of accordingly.