2004 (1) TMI 218 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against rejection of refund claim under D.E.P.B. Scheme.

Analysis:
The appeal pertains to the rejection of a refund claim by the Revenue, which was later allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the current appeal. The respondents exported fabrics under the D.E.P.B. Scheme and filed a refund claim with the Central Excise Deputy Commissioner. The claim was rejected citing various grounds, including issues related to deemed credit, shipping bills, and compliance with statutory provisions.

The Deputy Commissioner rejected the claim based on reasons not specified in Rule 57F(13), under which the refund was claimed. The rejection was deemed unsustainable by the Commissioner (Appeals) as it did not align with the statutory provisions. The Deputy Commissioner indirectly admitted that all conditions of Rule 57F(13) were fulfilled, indicating the correctness of the claim's acceptance by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Regarding the deemed credit register and shipping bills, the Tribunal analyzed the issues in detail. The controversy over the opening and closing balance of deemed credit was deemed unwarranted. The Tribunal clarified that the separate register for deemed credit is solely for scrutiny purposes and does not prohibit the transfer of credit to RG 23A Part II. The objection raised by the Revenue on this point was found to lack merit.

On the issue of shipping bills, the Tribunal found the objection regarding the lack of certified copies of shipping bills duly certified by Customs Authorities to be baseless. The Tribunal highlighted that Customs Authorities are responsible for endorsing the export benefits obtained from excise, and the adjudicating authority should cross-check with Customs Authorities instead of demanding certified copies of shipping bills from the respondents. The Tribunal concluded that the Revenue's appeal lacked merit and upheld the order-in-appeal allowing the refund claim.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing that the grounds raised did not align with the statutory provisions governing the refund claim under the D.E.P.B. Scheme. The judgment provides a detailed analysis of the issues related to deemed credit, shipping bills, and compliance with legal requirements, ultimately affirming the decision to allow the refund claim.