C.C.E. Vs. SIDDHARTH TUBES LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revenue's appeal seeks setting aside of the Order -in -Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals -II) and restoring of the Order -in -Original.

(2.) Heard both sides and perused the record.

(3.) The facts of the case are that the respondent is a manufacturer availing himself of input credit. On 13.7.99, the jurisdictional superintendent reversed credit of over Rs.3,03,819/ - in their RG -23A part II (Modvat credit register). Respondent sent complaint against it on the very next day to the Commissioner, Chairman of the Central Board of Excise and Customs, Chief Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner of Ujjain. Since no action was taken, they filed a refund application which was rejected by the original authority with the following observation: "M/s. Siddhartha Tubes Ltd., Sarangpur Distt., Rajgarh (M.P.) hereinafter referred to as the "Party") have filed a refund claim for Rs. 3,03,819/ - on 27.08.99 on the grounds highlighted hereunder. The party has alleged that an amount of Rs.3,03,819/ - was forcefully debited by the Superintendent, Central Excise Range Shajapur in the own handwriting vide RG -23 A part II done without service of any notice or demand upon them and therefore they have filed a claim for refund of Rs.3,03,819/ -. I have carefully gone through the case records and examined the circumstances under which the refund claim has been filed by the party. The first question which will have to be determined by me is as to whether the debit entry at RG 23A part II Entry No.99/1602 dated 13.07.99 has been made forcefully or not. In this context, it would be mandatory for me to refer page No.99 of the RG -23A part II register of the party. I find that a debit entry at SI no. 1602 dated 13.07.99 for Rs.3,03,819/ - has been made. This entry happens to be the last entry appearing on page 99 of the register. I also observe that the balance of credit i.e. Rs. 27,56,080/ - has been carried forward to the next page (i.e. page 100 of the Register). The dated signature of the Authorized signatory of the party is also appearing at the right side of the page with the remark "checked". I therefore, feel that, if ever the party had may objection to this debit entry alleged to have been made by the Range Superintendent necessary action would have been taken by the party and the balance after taking into account this debit entry would not have been carried over to page 100 of the Register. I fail to under stand as to how the dated signature of the party's Authorized Signatory would have appeared at the end of page 99 of the Register. It would necessarily imply that the consent of the party was apparent at the time of making the debit entry. The refund claim also has been filed on 27.08.99 (i.e. after a lapse of 40 days) which is unreasonable. this refund claim therefore appears to be the outcome of an after though decision. I, therefore do not feel the necessity of going into the details as to whether the Range Superintendent had, in his own handwriting made the entry or not. The party has also not placed any evidence in support of their contention. It would also be an act beyond jurisdiction of me to as certain the purpose of the payment made by the party as far as this refund claimed is concerned. ORDER In view of my finding aforesaid, in reject the party's refund claim for Rs.3,03,819/ - dated 27.08.99. The refund claim is accordingly disposed off."