Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Upper India Couper Paper Mills Co. Ltd. vs C.C.E. on 21 July, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1999ECR527(TRI.-DELHI), 2000(117)ELT767(TRI-DEL)
ORDER
U.L. Bhat, J. (President)
1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-original dated 7-5-1991 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad, confirming demand of Rs. 10,665/40 under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The amount was said to have been erroneously refunded to the appellant pursuant to the appellant's refund application. From letter dated 15-12-1986 at page 12 of the paper book it is seen that appellant having paid excise duty under protest during the months April to August, 1997, filed a refund application and when the claim was misplaced, presented a copy of the refund claim on 15-1-1986. Refund was made on 29-1-1986. On 8-6-1990 show cause notice was issued stating that refund was made erroneously and that proviso to Section 11(1) of the Act was applicable, since the appellant did not produce the relevant invoices and as such redetermination of value could not be made accurately. The amount refunded was Rs. 1,42,130.10 out of which a sum Rs. 10,665.40 was said to be amount refunded in excess. Replying to the show cause notice as on 30-6-1990, appellant stated that the show cause notice did not indicate how this amount was arrived at. The reply also stated that the appellant had not suppressed any facts and had produced all relevant documents before the Assistant Collector at the time of hearing, obviously of the refund application. Appellant sought particulars so as to enable a proper reply to be sent. Notice of personal hearing was given to the appellant to which the appellant sent a reply again asking for the particulars. Thereupon, the Additional Collector passed the order confirming the demand. It is this order which is now challenged.
2. The Department has filed cross-objection to the appeal, supporting the impugned order. Even in this cross-objection, it has not been explained on what basis it was contended that there was excess refund and what was the error committed in ordering the refund. It is not explained when the invoices were called for and what was the occasion when the appellant failed to produce the invoices. In these circumstances, we are of opinion that appellant was justified in asking for particulars. According to Shri K. Srivastava, SDR, the particulars would be forthcoming.
3. Under these circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the jurisdictional Adjudicating Authority, who shall immediately furnish to the appellant the basis on which the tentative view regarding erroneous refund was taken, the worksheet therefor as also the occasion when the invoices were called for from the appellant and not furnished by the appellant to enable the appellant to submit a proper reply. There shall be granted an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant. The appeal is allowed.