2007 (1) TMI 250 - HC - Central Excise

Refund Delay in submission of proof of export - Held that - The learned Assistant Commissioner ought to have considered the refund applications in the light of the provisions of Rule 12 of the Central Excise Rules. Hence, the impugned order is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise to consider the refund applications afresh in the light of Rule 12 of the Central Excise Rules - Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise shall decide the said applications in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to rejection of refund applications based on lack of proof of actual exports and subsequent duty demand and penalty confirmation.

Analysis:
The petitioners challenged five orders rejecting refund applications due to failure to produce proof of actual exports, resulting in duty demand and penalty confirmation. Appeals to the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise were dismissed, and a Writ Petition was declined due to delay in submitting requisite export documents. The petitioners paid duty and penalty under protest and applied for refunds, which were rejected. The petitioners cited Rule 12 of the Central Excise Rules, emphasizing the Collector's discretion to grant rebate even if conditions are not fully met. The Assistant Commissioner acknowledged the goods' exportation but based the rejection on prior adjudication. The High Court ruled the rejection unsustainable, directing a fresh consideration of refund applications in line with Rule 12.

Conclusion:
The High Court quashed the impugned order, remanding the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for reconsideration per Rule 12. The Assistant Commissioner was instructed to decide promptly within three months. The rule was made absolute, and the petition was disposed of accordingly.