Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Home Care (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs Cce on 24 August, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2006(197)ELT110(TRI-DEL)
ORDER
S.S. Kang, Vice President
1. Heard both sides.
2. The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the refund of Rs. 45,398/- was rejected on the ground that the appellant failed to produce application form i.e. ARE-I in respect of goods exported by them.
3. The contention of the appellant is that as per the provisions of Notification No. 11/2002-CE dated 1.3.2002, the Revenue prescribed a procedure for refund of CENVAT credit in respect of the inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products which were cleared for export. The contention is that as per the conditions of the Notification, the manufacturer has to submit an application in the prescribed form to the Dy. Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner along with Bill of lading or export application duly certified by any officer of customs to the effect that goods have in fact been exported. The contention is that the appellant produced along with application of shipping Bill, bill of lading and bank relization certificate. The lower authorities had not considered these arguments in support of their claim that manufactured goods has been exported. The refund was rejected only on the ground of non-submission of ARE-1 along with the refund claim. The contention is that previously this application was known as AR-4 and the Tribunal in the case of Wonderseal Packing v. CCE reported in 2002 (147) ELT 626 held that the refund claim of credit on export of goods not deniable merely for failure to follow AR4 procedure if the claim is otherwise admissible.
4. The contention is that other documents which were produced along with application showing the export of the goods manufactured by them are not taken into consideration.
5. The contention of the Revenue is that it is on the appellant to prove that they had exported the goods, which were manufactured by them regarding which they are asking for refund of credit. As the appellant had not produced the necessary application for export, therefore, the refund was rightly rejected. The contention is that the amount regarding which appellant produced the necessary applications for export, the refund was allowed.
6. In this case the refund in respect of credit on inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product which are cleared for export was disallowed on the ground that the appellant had not produced ARE-1. The Revenue vide Notification No. 11/2002-CE prescribed the procedure for claiming refund in respect of the credit on inputs used in the manufacture of final product which are cleared for export as per the notification the manufacturer has to submit form along with bill of lading or shipping bill or export application duty certified by the officer of Customs to show that the goods have been exported. In the present case, the appellant had produced document such as shipping bill, bill of lading and bank realization certificate hence the Revenue cannot be denied the refund claim on the ground that the appellant had not followed the procedure if refund is otherwise admissible.
7. As the appellant had produced certain documents such as bill of lading, shipping bill and bank realization certificate from which it can be verified that goods manufactured by the appellant were exported or not, therefore, the matter requires for reconsideration. The impugned order whereby the refund of Rs. 45,398/- was rejected is set aside and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant in accordance with law. The appeal is disposed of by way of remand.