Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2015 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (6) TMI 1015 - AT - Central ExciseDenial of refund claim - Held that:- In this case, out of 70 export consignments cleared for export during July September 2007 period, in 11 consignments, the vessel in which the goods had been loaded sailed in October 2007. In other cases the vessel carrying the export goods left during July 2007 September 2007 period. Since the refund claim has been filed on 5/5/08, the same, in respect of all these export consignments, is within the prescribed limitation period, and, in fact, this is not the allegation of the Department. There is no allegation that the condition 2,4,5 or 6 are not satisfied. Since as per the provisions of the notification, the refund of unutilised Cenvat credit is admissible in respect of inputs or input services used in manufacture of final products, which are cleared for export under bond or letter of undertaking,, prima facie, of the view that when refund claim has been filed in respect of the 70 consignments cleared for export during July 2007 September 2007, within the prescribed limitation period, and by the time the refund claim was filed, the goods had already been exported out of India, refund in respect of 11 consignments cannot be denied just because the same were physically exported in October 2007. Another ground for denial of refund is that the copies of shipping bills duly certified by the customs officers regarding export of the goods were not enclosed alongwith the refund application. While it is true that alongwith the refund application, only self certified copies of shipping bills were enclosed, but as mentioned in the impugned order-in-appeal, the customs certified copies were produced subsequently. I am prima facie of the view that non-production of customs certified copies of shipping bills alongwith the refund application is only a remediable defect for which the refund claim cannot be denied when subsequently the customs certified copies of shipping bills were produced. A substantive claim cannot be denied for a minor procedural violation. There is merit in the appellants plea that the refund order has been correctly sanctioned by the Asst. Commissioner.
|