2021 (7) TMI 611 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of excess Excise Duty paid - erroneous adoption of higher price - denial on the ground that appellant has failed to prove payment of excess duty - documentary evidences not considered - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The appellant filed refund claim of the excess duty paid along with various documents in support of his claim but both the authorities have not examined the documents and the statements submitted by the appellant in support of their claim so much so the Chartered Accountant Certificate issued by the CA of the appellant as well as of the M/s Welspun Corp. Ltd have not been considered - The impugned order has simply observed that the appellant has failed to prove the payment of excess duty without considering the plethora of documentary evidences on record, the CA Certificate produced on record have been totally ignored without any reason. The documents produced in the Appeal Paper book and few sample invoices shows the payment of excess duty but the same have not been considered and verified by the authorities below - this case needs to be remanded to the original authority with a direction to pass a fresh order after examining the various documents placed on record or which may be submitted by the appellant in support of their claim and thereafter pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against rejection of refund claim of excess Excise duty paid due to error in pricing.
- Failure of authorities to consider documentary evidence supporting the refund claim.

Analysis:
1. Issue 1 - Appeal against rejection of refund claim:
The case involved the appellant, engaged in manufacturing various steel products, who had cleared Prime Carbon Steel Slabs to a buyer at a price higher than what was specified in the Purchase Order. This resulted in an excess payment of Excise duty, which the buyer acknowledged and confirmed not taking CENVAT credit for. The appellant filed a refund claim for the excess amount paid, which was rejected by the authorities citing various grounds. The appellant contended that the error in pricing led to the excess duty payment, supported by documents like the Purchase Order, invoices showing excess duty paid, and letters from the buyer confirming the error. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection, focusing on service tax liability on freight charges rather than the excess Excise duty paid. The appellant argued that the authorities failed to consider the terms of the Purchase Order and the documentary evidence provided, including letters and CA certificates confirming the excess payment.

2. Issue 2 - Failure to consider documentary evidence:
The appellant's representative argued that the impugned order was unsustainable as it did not properly appreciate the facts and documents on record. The appellant had submitted detailed evidence, including computation of excess duty paid, letters from the buyer confirming the error, and CA certificates certifying the excess payment. However, both the adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to dispute the computation of excess duty paid but concluded that the appellant did not provide sufficient evidence to support the refund claim. The appellate tribunal, after considering submissions from both parties and reviewing the material on record, found that the authorities had not examined the documents and statements submitted by the appellant adequately. The tribunal noted that crucial documents like CA certificates and letters confirming the excess payment were ignored without valid reasons, leading to an unjust rejection of the refund claim.

3. Conclusion:
The appellate tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the case to the original authority for a fresh order. It directed the authority to reevaluate the various documents submitted by the appellant in support of their claim and to pass a reasoned order in accordance with the law within two months. The tribunal emphasized the importance of considering all documentary evidence and following the principles of natural justice in reaching a decision on the refund claim of the excess Excise duty paid due to the pricing error.