9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 621X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. - Appeal No. E/86563/2017 - A/85345/2018 - Dated:- 1-3-2018 - Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri Rajesh Ostwal, Advocate for appellant Shri Ahibaran, Additional Commissioner (AR) for respondent ORDER This is the second round of litigation by M/s Harish Exporter in relation to 14 refund claims between April 2003 to July 2004, for a total of ₹ 35,21,777/- under rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002/2004. Appellant, an exporter of textiles, sought the refund of duties paid on inputs used in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rawback. It is their further contention that following documents (a) ER 1 return for the Financial Year 2003 2004, (b) Cenvat Return under Rule 7 for the Financial Year 2003 - 2004 (c) Cenvat Stock Account along with input suppliers name for the Financial Year 2003 - 2004 (d) Statement showing list of shipping bill along with input supplier name for export of readymade garment as such against which duty drawback was claimed and no cenvat credit was availed on inputs used in such export goods (e) Statement showing list of shipping bill along with input' supplier name for export of self manufactured goods where inputs have been procured from traders against which duty drawback was claimed and no cenvat credit wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed any new documents in their support to challenge the findings of lower adjudicating authority or to prove that the refund claims were in order and can be sanctioned. Even at the appellate stage the appellant has been unable to furnished nay documents to establish that no duty drawback has been claimed in respect of invoices where they have claimed refund. In the absence of such co-relation backed by documentary evidences, the grounds on which the present appeal is filed by the appellant becomes unsustainable. A mere statement that no drawback has been claimed will not measure upto the level of verification envisaged by the Hon ble CESTAT so as to overcome other short comings/non-compliance initially observed while rejecting the refund cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rth noting. 5. Heard Learned Counsel for appellant and Learned Authorised Representative. 6. 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. The Tribunal is further constrained by the absence of such an analysis by the lower authorities. It is only appropriate that the first appellate authority gives its finding on the acceptability or otherwise of each of the listed evidences supra to determine the eligibility for refund. For this purpose, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
