2018 (6) TMI 640 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of Excise Duty - Excise duty paid erroneously - time limitation - Section 11B of the CEA, 1944 - Held that - The ARE-1 is a form filled up when the exporter removes the excisable goods from the factory for export and this exempts from paying excise duty on clearance. It is for the exporter therefore to establish that the goods of the first ARE-1 was not cleared. The appellant thought it prudent to claim refund allegedly after resale, on 2.11.2015 nearly after five months from the date of first ARE-1. This was done without adhering to the procedures laid down in the statute because in any case, procedures required to be established that the goods remained with the appellant-assessee. As observed by the lower authorities even the Range Supdt. was not informed about the so called cancelled invoice in time nor did the department have any chance to physical verification of the alleged un-cleared goods. Refund claim made without following the procedures required under the statute - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund of excise duty claim rejection under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The appellant-assessee contested the rejection of its refund claim for excise duty by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-II). The appellant had cancelled an ARE-1 related to export of goods and filed a refund claim for the erroneously paid duty. The appellant claimed that the export was cancelled, and the duty debited in their Cenvat Account needed to be refunded. Subsequently, they cleared the goods under a new invoice after paying central excise duty. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim citing procedural lapses. The Range officer was not informed timely about the cancellation of the export, hindering physical verification of the goods. The authority also highlighted discrepancies in the stock register, questioning the appellant's claims.

The Commissioner (Appeals-II) upheld the rejection order, stating that the appellant failed to provide substantial evidence to support their claims. The appellant's argument that they exported the goods under a new ARE-1 was deemed unsubstantiated. The Commissioner emphasized the importance of maintaining proper stock accounts and providing documentary evidence. The Tribunal heard the appellant's arguments but noted that the appellant did not follow statutory procedures. The appellant's delay in claiming a refund, lack of proper documentation, and failure to inform the Range officer in a timely manner were considered detrimental to their case.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's arguments, though strong, lacked concrete proof. The appellant's failure to establish the retention of goods and the delayed notification of the cancelled export raised doubts about the validity of their refund claim. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of adhering to statutory procedures and providing tangible evidence to support refund claims. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the decisions of the lower authorities due to the appellant's failure to meet procedural requirements and substantiate their claims adequately.