2023 (12) TMI 1240 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - refund rejected solely on the ground that the TR6 challan, evincing payment of duty, had not been furnished - HELD THAT - The issue of documentation prescribed under section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 for claiming of refunds came before the Tribunal in MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VERSUS COMMR. OF C. EX., NAGPUR 2004 (4) TMI 368 - CESTAT, MUMBAI and it was held therein that The respondent has no case that the appellants have claimed refund of duty unduly or with any oblique purpose. The appellant is a public body and it can have no oblique motives. The orders of the lower authorities are set aside in so far as the refund claims in question are concerned. The claims are allowed. The issue is the same as that in the dispute of the appellant for similar refund. It would appear that the lower authorities had erred in insisting upon the original document as proof of discharge of duty liability even though available with the central excise authorities - the impugned order is set aside and the application restored to the original authority for fresh determination of the application for sanction in consequence of judicial determination of non-excisability. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
Denial of refund claim based on non-furnishing of TR-6 challan as evidence of duty discharge.

Summary:

Issue 1: Requirement of furnishing TR-6 challan for refund claim
The appeal by M/s Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd contested the denial of a refund claim of Rs. 36,70,325/- due to the absence of the TR-6 challan as proof of duty discharge. The duty amount was paid following allegations of manufacturing excisable goods, and the refund claim was made after disputes were settled in favor of the appellant.

Issue 2: Rejection of refund claim based on lack of TR-6 challan
The original authority and the first appellate authority rejected the refund claim citing the non-furnishing of the TR-6 challan as the primary reason. The appellant's contention was that the duty payment evidence was available with the central excise authorities, thus challenging the insistence on the original document.

Issue 3: Interpretation of documentation requirements under Central Excise Act
Referring to a previous case, the Tribunal highlighted the importance of departmental records in proving duty payment, especially when the documents are not directly available to the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized that burdening the assessee with additional evidence of duty payment, when reflected in the department's records, is unjust. The decision to allow refund claims was made based on the factual position supported by departmental correspondence.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the application back to the original authority for a fresh determination considering the judicial finding of non-excisability. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the importance of departmental records in proving duty discharge, even when original documents are not directly available to the assessee.