TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 640X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that the goods remained with the appellant-assessee. As observed by the lower authorities even the Range Supdt. was not informed about the so called cancelled invoice in time nor did the department have any chance to physical verification of the alleged un-cleared goods. Refund claim made without following the procedures required under the statute - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - E/41650/2017 - Final Order No. 41782/2018 - Dated:- 12-6-2018 - Hon ble P. Dinesha, Member ( Judicial ) Shri R. Ravikumar, Adv. for the appellant Shri R. Subramaniyam, AC (AR) for the respondent ORDER In this case the appellant-assessee is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-II) who vide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . B061/2015-16 11 Lakhs 2 26.09.2015 Resale thro ARE-1 B183/2015-16 12 Lakhs 3 07.10.2015 Intimation regarding cancellation of ARE-1 4 02.11.2015 Refund claim of excise duty of ₹ 11,69,079/- 5 08.01.2016 SCN 4. A SCN was issued dated 08.01.2016 by the adjudicating authority as to why the claim of refund of duty of ₹ 11,69,079/- filed by tem on 02.11.2015 should not be rejected under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 23.06.2015, they should have been reflected in the opening balance of the Stock Register as on 26.09.2015. Furthermore, the removal of goods on payment of duty for export under rebate is shown whereas there is no opening balance or quantity manufactured on the date of clearance of the said goods for export ie., on 26.09.2015. The closing stock of the goods as on 26.09.2015 after removal of goods for export under Rebate, reflects 112 Nos, which reveals that neither the said goods were manufactured nor was there any opening balance. 5. An appeal was filed against the OIO before the Commissioner (Appeals-II) and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection order and one of the grounds for rejection was that though the appellant contended ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the table above, the appellant thought it prudent to claim refund allegedly after resale, on 2.11.2015 nearly after five months from the date of first ARE-1. This was done without adhering to the procedures laid down in the statute because in any case, procedures required to be established that the goods remained with the appellant-assessee. As observed by the lower authorities even the Range Supdt. was not informed about the so called cancelled invoice in time nor did the department have any chance to physical verification of the alleged un-cleared goods. 8. In view of the foregoing, I have not convinced about the claim of the appellant which according to me is made without following the procedures required under the statute and theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
