1997 (4) TMI 300 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Claim for refund based on notification benefit - Evidence of goods made from old and used articles - Burden of proof on the respondent - Commissioner (Appeals) decision in favor of the assessee - Appeal by the Department challenging the decision.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai involved a dispute regarding the refund claim made by the assessee based on the benefit of a notification. The assessee had claimed a refund of the duty paid on gauzes made from platinum and rhodium without availing the notification benefit. The notification provided a concessional rate of duty for articles manufactured from specified metals remade from old used articles. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the claim citing lack of evidence that the goods were made from old and used articles, despite a Chartered Accountant certificate stating the platinum was not purchased from a specific source during the relevant period.

The Commissioner (Appeals) ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that sufficient evidence had been produced to support the claim. The Commissioner highlighted that the goods were manufactured from old and used platinum obtained from a specific source, as evidenced by the Chartered Accountant's certificate and other supporting documents. The Commissioner's decision was based on the evidence presented by the assessee regarding the origin of the materials used in manufacturing the gauzes.

However, the Appellate Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had erred in concluding that the benefit of the notification was applicable to the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized that the burden of proof lay with the respondent to demonstrate that the goods were indeed manufactured from old and used articles as required by the notification. Merely showing that the metal was not purchased from a specific entity did not conclusively prove the origin of the materials. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner had failed to establish with specific evidence that the gauzes were made from old and used articles supplied by a particular source, leading to a misdirection in the decision.

Ultimately, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal by the Department, dismissing the Commissioner (Appeals) decision and reinstating the order of the Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of providing specific evidence to support claims for notification benefits and upheld the principle that the burden of proof rests with the party seeking the exemption.