2018 (3) TMI 621 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of duties paid on inputs used in the manufacture of the exported goods - primary ground for rejection is that the appellant had, despite many opportunities to do so, failed to produce documents for verification and the few sample invoices furnished by them were, on verification, found to be fictitious - Held that - The first appellate authority appears to have given a summary disposal of the documents, furnished by appellant. Without examining those documents, it is not possible for the Tribunal to come to the conclusion that these would suffice to establish the claim for refund in accordance with the remand order of the Tribunal on the previous occasion - It is only appropriate that the first appellate authority gives its finding on the acceptability or otherwise of each of the listed evidences to determine the eligibility for refund - matter on remand.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claims under rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002/2004 for exported goods.

Analysis:
The case involved M/s Harish Exporter's appeal for 14 refund claims between April 2003 to July 2004, totaling &8377; 35,21,777/- under rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules. The appellant, an exporter of textiles, sought the refund of duties paid on inputs used in the manufacture of exported goods. The Tribunal had previously remanded the matter to ascertain the utilization of inputs and duty drawback claims. The original authority denied the refund claims, upheld by the first appellate authority. The rejection was primarily due to the appellant's failure to produce verifiable documents and the discovery of fictitious invoices.

The appellant argued that the scrutiny of documents went beyond the remand order's scope, emphasizing the need for specific documents to support their claims. They provided various documents like ER 1 return, Cenvat Return, Cenvat Stock Account, and statements of export of goods under different schemes. However, the first appellate authority found the documents insufficient to establish eligibility for refund, citing lack of new evidence or facts to challenge the lower authority's findings.

The Tribunal noted that a detailed examination of the documents was necessary to determine their sufficiency for refund claims. The absence of such analysis by lower authorities led to the remand of the matter for a thorough review by the first appellate authority. The Tribunal stressed the importance of establishing the link between CENVAT credit availed inputs and exported goods, as well as ensuring no duty drawback claims were made. The case highlighted the necessity of providing valid and verifiable documentation to support refund claims under the CENVAT Credit Rules.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case for a detailed assessment of the documents provided by the appellant to determine the eligibility for refund claims under rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules.