2001 (1) TMI 106 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim rejection and demand confirmation by the Commissioner (Appeals).
2. Non-attendance of applicants at personal hearings.
3. Confirmation of demand due to non-production of original documents.
4. Comparison with a similar case regarding rebate claims under Rule 191A.
5. Grounds for revision application by the Commissioner.
6. Government's decision on the revision application and direction for scrutiny of records.

1. Refund Claim Rejection and Demand Confirmation:
The Revision Application was filed against the Order-in-Appeal rejecting the refund claim of Central Excise duty contained in inputs used in goods exported in 1991 and 1992. The original authority rejected the claim and confirmed the demand of Rs. 1,00,972. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, citing non-production of original documents as the reason for the erroneous refund confirmation.

2. Non-Attendance at Personal Hearings:
Despite multiple personal hearing dates being fixed, the applicants failed to attend or communicate, leading the Government to proceed based on available documents. The Government highlighted the importance of timely participation in the proceedings.

3. Non-Production of Original Documents:
The confirmation of the demand was primarily due to the non-production of original documents showing the duty paid inputs received by the finished goods manufacturer. This lack of documentation led to the rejection of the refund claim.

4. Comparison with Similar Case on Rebate Claims:
A comparison was made with a case involving rebate claims under Rule 191A, where the Asstt. Commissioner rejected claims for not submitting original duty paying documents. The Commissioner (Appeals) directed further inquiries, emphasizing the importance of following rules and procedures to prevent misuse.

5. Grounds for Revision Application:
The Commissioner filed a revision application arguing against the burden of verifying authenticity at the consignor's end, stating that it would strain department resources. The Government disagreed, citing the clear rules under Rule 191A for lodging rebate claims with the proper officer.

6. Government's Decision on Revision Application:
After thorough analysis, the Government found no legal infirmity in the Commissioner (Appeals) order and decided not to interfere. The Revision Application was allowed with a direction for the proper officer to scrutinize records from the factory of manufacture and grant rebate as per the law.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues related to refund claims, non-attendance at hearings, document production requirements, comparison with a similar case, grounds for revision, and the Government's decision on the application.