TOPLAND EXPORTS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAJKOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOUR refund claims were filed in the months of March and April 1999, seeking refund of Excise duty paid on Diesel Oil Engines used for manufacture of centrifugal pump sets. Refund claims were rejected on the ground that the appellant should have followed the Chapter X procedure. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his order dated 16 -5 -2000, held that the refund along with interest is admissible to the appellant for the duty paid by him for procurement of diesel oil engines. This decision was not challenged by Revenue and has attained finality. However, after issue of the order by Commissioner (Appeals), a show cause notice was issued by Deputy Commissioner on 7 -12 -2000. The show cause notice read with the corrigendum dated 22 -12 -2000 proposes rejection of refund claims on account of unjust enrichment on the ground that the appellant had already claimed duty drawback. However, in the adjudication order issued consequent to issue of show cause notice, refund claims were rejected on the ground that the copies of shipping bills were not produced in respect of one refund claim. In respect of other refund claims, there were other grounds also, which were taken for rejecting the claims. The appeal filed by the appellant was rejected by Commissioner (Appeals) and this Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the appellant vide Order Nos. A/150 -154/WZB/2004/C -III, dated 29 -3 -2004. In this order of the Tribunal, the matter was remanded to original adjudicating authority with the following observations : 4. Considering the matter to be covered and following the same, appeals file for revenue are dismissed. The appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and matter remanded to the original authority who should follow the Tribunals decision in the assessees own case and therefore decide on refund after hearing the assessee, who undertake to produce the Shipping Bill and/or other connected records of products having been exported in question.

(2.) CONSEQUENT to this direction, the original adjudicating authority once again adjudicated the issue and sanctioned the refund claims, but rejected the claim for interest on the ground that documents were produced only after the order was passed by the Tribunal directing the appellant to produce shipping bills and/or other documents. The appeal filed by the appellant has been rejected in the impugned order.

(3.) LD . Counsel on behalf of the appellants submitted that the question of non -submission of shipping bills was not an issue at all. He drew my attention to the order dated 4 -8 -2004 and submitted that the observations made therein that the documents were not called for and not produced, is not correct in view of the fact that show cause notice issued and corrigendum related to duty drawback and unjust enrichment only and there was no mention of non -submission of documents. As regards unjust enrichment and duty drawback, the issue has been settled in their favour and therefore denial of interest on the ground that the appellant had not furnished the documents initially is baseless.