2009 (11) TMI 459 - AT - Central Excise

Refund - M/s. IVRCL for laying pipes for effluent conveyance system and water transmission. it was certified that M/s. IVRCL were eligible for exemption from the Central Excise Duty in accordance with the Notification No. 3/2004-C.E., dated 8-1-2004 or pipes delivered from the factory, M/s. Lanco Industries Ltd. Basing on the above said two certificates. Certificate subsequently cancelled but second set of certificate. Held that- refund claimed as duty paid during interim period to complete project in time. Certificate not placed before adjudicating authority or Commissioner (Appeals). Matter remanded to adjudicating authority for passing fresh order.

Summary

Issues involved:
Refund of excise duty paid on DI pipes under Notification No. 3/2004-C.E., validity of certificates issued by District Collector, Coimbatore, discrepancies in refund claims, rejection of refund claim by lower authorities.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Refund of excise duty on DI pipes
The appeal concerned the refund of excise duty paid on DI pipes used for effluent conveyance and water transmission. The appellants claimed exemption under Notification No. 3/2004-C.E. Initially, certificates issued by the District Collector allowed duty exemption, but they were later canceled. Subsequently, new certificates were issued, and the appellants sought refund of duty paid on the DI pipes.

Issue 2: Validity of certificates
The District Collector first canceled the certificates based on a query from the Commissioner of Central Excise but reissued them after clarification from the Ministry of Finance. However, the certificates were not presented before the lower authorities during the proceedings, leading to a lack of consideration of crucial evidence in the decision-making process.

Issue 3: Discrepancies in refund claims
Discrepancies were noted in the refund claims filed by the appellants, leading to scrutiny by the Revenue authorities. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the refund claim after the appellants rectified the discrepancies as informed. The rejection was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), prompting the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.

Conclusion:
The Appellate Tribunal found that the lower authorities failed to consider the certificates procured by the appellants from the District Collector, which were crucial for assessing the validity of the refund claims. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the original Adjudicating Authority for reconsideration, emphasizing the need for a detailed examination following the Principles of Natural Justice. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.