1991 (3) TMI 280 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund of duty on exported excisable goods.
2. Rejection of refund claims due to non-submission of original AR 4 forms.
3. Interpretation of Rule 189 of the Central Excise Rules.
4. Duty of department to send original AR 4 forms.
5. Examination of evidence and remand for re-examination of claims.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to two appeals challenging the Order-in-Appeal confirming the rejection of refund claims by the Collector of Customs (Appeals). The appellants exported excisable goods to Bangladesh and claimed duty refund under AR 4 forms. The claims were rejected as the original AR 4 forms were not produced. The appellants argued that the duty to send original AR 4 forms lies with the department as per Rule 189 of the Central Excise Rules. They highlighted a letter indicating the dispatch of AR 4 forms to support their case.

The Ld. JDR supported the rejection, emphasizing the need for original AR 4 forms to substantiate refund claims. The authorities rejected the claims solely due to non-production of AR 4 forms. However, it was revealed that the original AR 4 forms were submitted to the Radhikapur excise office, which mistakenly sent them to Calcutta instead of Ahmedabad. The judgment noted that the original AR 4 forms were in the custody of the department and in the process of being transmitted to Ahmedabad, warranting further examination or remand by the Collector (Appeals).

Upon reviewing the evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the AR 4 forms likely reached the Ahmedabad office. Consequently, the orders were set aside, and the matters were remanded to the Assistant Collector for a thorough examination of the claims based on the original AR 4 forms. The Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to make efforts to procure the original AR 4 forms through appropriate channels. Ultimately, the appeals were allowed by way of remand, providing an opportunity for a reevaluation of the refund claims.