MAN STRUCTURALS LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants had exported a consignment of T.L. Tower material to Nepal Electricity Authority, Kathmandu on payment of duty of Rs. 69,025/ -. Subsequently, they filed a refund claim with the proper officer of Central Excise, saying that they ought to have paid duty only to the extent of Rs. 12,320/ - and hence there was excess payment of Rs. 56,705/ -, This claim for refund of Rs. 56,705/ - was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner as per Order dated 28 -9 -2002, the operative part of which is reproduced below : -

(2.) Heard both the sides. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submits that all the relevant documents were produced before the original authority to substantiate the refund claim. These documents are listed below : -

(3.) Ld. Counsel submits that it was clearly discernible from the above documents that the excess duty of Rs. 69,025/ - was paid erroneously on the assessable value of a different consignment of goods covered by a different transaction between M/s. Prem Power Construction Pvt. Ltd. (PPCPL, for short) and a Spanish company viz. M/s. INABENSA Instalaciones Abengoa, S.A. and that the excess duty payable on the export goods in question was only Rs. 12,320/ -. Counsel submits that the documents produced before the original authority were not examined. The Commissioner (Appeals) also has not cared to examine the documentary evidence. He has simply held that the refund claim was not corroborated with evidence. I have heard the DR also, who reiterates the findings recorded in the orders passed by the original and first appellate authorities.