2024 (6) TMI 611 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of excise duty and interest - lack of proper duty exemption certificates - HELD THAT - It is an admitted fact that the appellant had manufactured the goods and supplied to institutions eligible for exemption. These institutions are of stature and cannot be expected to obtain this goods without following the requirement as laid down by the Notification. Even if there is an omission on part of the appellant to produce proper certificate as per the Notification, Considering the same as curable defect, an opportunity should have been extended them to produce the same before rejecting the refund claim. Considering the above facts and also considering the condition of the Notification and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) , MUMBAI VERSUS M/S. DILIP KUMAR AND COMPANY ORS. 2018 (7) TMI 1826 - SUPREME COURT , it is a fit case to be remanded to adjudication authority by extending an opportunity for the Appellant to produce certificate as per the notification. Appeal is remanded to adjudicating authority for de-novo adjudication - Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved: Refund of excise duty and interest due to lack of proper duty exemption certificates.

Summary:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing, availed CENVAT credit and cleared goods to institutions under a specific notification. Audit revealed exemption availed without proper certificates, leading to payment of duty and interest. Refund application rejected due to lack of signed documents as per the notification. Appellant appealed, citing certificates from institutions' heads as proper authority. Tribunal referred to a similar case where a technical defect in signing was overlooked, emphasizing the intent of exemption for research institutions. The Authorized Representative argued against refund eligibility, citing failure to meet notification conditions. Appellant sought opportunity to rectify the defect. Tribunal acknowledged the stature of the institutions and deemed the defect curable, remanding the case for reevaluation with a deadline for producing the required certificate.

In conclusion, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was remanded for reevaluation, directing the appellant to provide the proper certificate within a specified timeframe for further adjudication.