1996 (5) TMI 165 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Admissibility of refund in respect of credit obtained on inputs used in the manufacture of final products exported under bond.

Summary:
The revenue appeals were filed against a common Order in Appeal related to the admissibility of a refund for credit obtained on inputs used in the manufacture of exported final products. The main argument for the revenue was that the refund claim was rejected due to the absence of AR 4/AR 4A to establish the export. The Commissioner (Appeals) was criticized for allowing the refund claim solely based on shipping bills and bill of lading without proper authorization.

On behalf of the respondent, it was argued that all necessary documents, including GP 2, shipping bill, bill of lading, invoices, and bank certificates, were attached to the refund claim. The absence of AR 4/AR 4A should not lead to rejection as the export was adequately proven. Referring to Notification No. 85/77-C.E., it was highlighted that bill of lading or shipping bill could serve as proof of export, as per Rule 57F Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in considering shipping bill, RT 12 returns, and GP 2s as evidence of export.

After hearing both sides, it was established that the refund of duty credit is permissible based on conditions outlined in the relevant Notification. Notification No. 85/77, dated 1-3-1987, specifically accepted bill of lading or shipping bill as valid documents for proving export. In this case, the production of GP 2, shipping bill, and bank certificates sufficed to establish export proof. The Commissioner (Appeals) was deemed competent to sanction the refund, with the actual approval to be granted by the Assistant Commissioner. Therefore, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the refund based on shipping bill in the absence of AR 4/AR 4A was upheld, rejecting the revenue appeals.