2023 (3) TMI 494 - AT - Central Excise

Seeking grant of refund - rejection of part refund claim on the ground that the conditions with regard to 129 AR3As not fulfilled - HELD THAT - From the refund application, it is clear that the appellant had submitted all the 144 AR3As. Therefore, there seems to be no reason on the partly refund is denied out of the total AR3As. Moreover, the appellant much before the passing of the adjudication order vide their letter dated 20.04.2011, brought to the knowledge of the commissioner referring their refund application that they had submitted all 144 AR3As along with the refund application. There is no dispute that the appellant had submitted all 144 AR3As. Therefore, there are no lapse on part of the appellant. It appears from the order that the cognizance of letter dated 20.04.2011 was not taken by the Adjudicating Authority. Therefore, the matter needs to be re considered taking into consideration that the appellant have submitted all the 144 AR3As. The appeal is allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority.

Summary

Issues:
1. Differential duty payment on Residual Crude Oil
2. Rejection of refund claim and subsequent legal proceedings

Issue 1: Differential duty payment on Residual Crude Oil
The appellant paid the differential duty for a specific period on Residual Crude Oil due to failure in receiving certificates of rewarehousing within the stipulated time frame. Show Cause Notices were issued and confirmed, leading to the payment of duty. Subsequent refund claims were rejected, and the matter went through various legal stages, including appeals and High Court intervention, resulting in the appellant being granted a refund. However, a subsequent recovery notice was issued, challenging the refund granted, leading to further adjudication.

Issue 2: Rejection of refund claim and subsequent legal proceedings
The appellant submitted refund applications along with relevant documents, including AR3As. The Adjudicating Authority rejected part of the refund claim, citing non-compliance with prescribed procedures under Central Excise Rules for certain AR3As. The appellant contended that all required documents were submitted, and the rejection was unfounded. The Tribunal, upon review, found discrepancies in the rejection basis and set aside the impugned order, remanding the matter back to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration based on the appellant's submission of all necessary documents.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the case to the adjudicating authority for a fresh review considering the appellant's submission of all relevant documents. The judgment highlighted the importance of proper documentation compliance and the need for thorough consideration of all evidence before rejecting refund claims.