2022 (9) TMI 795 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of Excise Duty paid - rejection on the ground that the documents were not submitted - HELD THAT - There is no dispute that the appellant has paid excess duty due to mistake such as double payment of duty, addition of duty against the cancelled invoice and wrong mentioned of amount in the invoice etc. Learned counsel invited the attention to the adjudication order wherein it was clearly recorded that all the documents sought for by the department has been submitted which is clearly mentioned in the reply to SCN at para 11 and the same has also been mentioned in para 5.5 of the OIO . Therefore the main ground of the rejection that document has not been submitted is of no basis as surprisingly after recording the details of the documents submitted by appellant at para 5.5 the Adjudicating Authority n the finding mentioned contrary that the documents were not submitted. There is no dispute that there is excess payment of duty due to bonafide mistakes the refund must be granted to the appellant after verifying the facts as regard unjust enrichment. Therefore, the matter needs to be reconsidered by the Adjudicating authority - Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund of excess excise duty mistakenly paid by the appellant.
2. Rejection of refund claim by the sanctioning authority due to alleged non-submission of documents.
3. Appeal filed by the appellant against the rejection of the refund claim.

Analysis:
The appellant mistakenly paid excess excise duty and sought a refund, which was rejected by the sanctioning authority citing non-submission of documents. The appellant contended that the excess payment was due to errors such as double payment of duty, inclusion of duty against a cancelled invoice, and incorrect amount mentioned in the invoice. The appellant's counsel argued that despite the department acknowledging the excess payment, the refund claim was rejected solely on procedural grounds. The revenue, represented by the Superintendent, supported the findings of the impugned order.

Upon careful consideration, the Hon'ble Member (Judicial) noted that there was no dispute regarding the excess payment of duty resulting from genuine mistakes. The adjudicating authority's rejection of the refund on the basis of non-submission of documents was found to be unfounded. It was highlighted that the appellant had indeed submitted all required documents, as clearly stated in the reply to the show-cause notice and the adjudication order. The Member emphasized that when excess payment due to bona fide mistakes is established, the refund should be granted after verifying unjust enrichment.

Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh decision considering the documents already submitted by the appellant. The appellant was to be afforded a proper opportunity for a hearing and submission of additional documents if necessary. The appeal was allowed for remand to the Adjudicating Authority, ensuring a fair reconsideration of the refund claim in light of the factual circumstances and procedural requirements.

In conclusion, the judgment emphasized the importance of rectifying genuine errors leading to excess duty payments and reiterated the need for a thorough review by the Adjudicating Authority to ensure a just outcome regarding the appellant's refund claim.