9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 425X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refund - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No.51367/2018-SM - Final Order No. 50407/2019 - Dated:- 19-2-2019 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Present Shri O.P Agarwal, Advocate for the appellants. Present Shri P.R. Gupta, DR for the respondent ORDER Per Anil Choudhary: The issue in this appeal is with regard to claim of interest on refund under Section 11 BB of the Central Excise Act. 2. The brief facts are that the appellant/assessee was working under 100% EOU and were issued 'no dues certificate' on 17.10.2008 the purpose of debonding. On the date of debonding i.e. 17.10.2008, the appellant had a stock of 4255.616 Sqmt. Of Finished Polished Granites Tiles and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isite procedure. Further, the appellant have not substantiated their stand that they exported the very same goods, which were lying in stock, as on the date of debonding. 4. This Tribunal vide Final Order No. 58543/2013-SM (BR) dated 11.12.2013 observed that as the appellant was a 100% EOU, as such could not have been registered under Central Excise Rules. Further, it was held that the allegation of Revenue that proper procedure was not followed, could not stand in the light of the fact that final product was exported. The Tribunal also took notice that the appellant have placed substantial evidence on record, in the shape of stock register and other statutory records indicating that the goods manufactured by them prior to the date of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xure-77 daily stock register. The quantity cleared from stock register was tallied with invoices, shipping bill, packing list and found in order. Further, Shipping Bill No., Bill of Lading No., Container No., Port of Loading were also verified and found in order. The R.O. has further informed that the assessee maintained another stock register from 17.10.2008 for quantity manufactured after debonding till 28.02.2009 and exported entire finished goods as submitted by party. However, details of export of entire production immediately after de-bonding has also been submitted for the period upto March, 2009 (Invoices, Packing List, S.B., Bill of Lading, etc.). 5.5 The R.O. has further submitted that on verification of the records submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng that the refund has been granted after verification of the documents, which was not available at the time of filing the refund claim. 8. The ld. Counsel submitted that they have not produced any new evidences. Pursuant to remand, all the documents in the report of the Range Officer, were already on the record of the Department. 9. Ld. DR for the Revenue opposed the claim of interest, in the line of the findings of the court below and relied on the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals), particularly on para-7 and also on the findings of the Adjudicating Authority in para-15 of the Order-in-Original, 10. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in rejecting the claim of interes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
