Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 18 November, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI APPEAL NO. E/934/09-Mum. (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. PIII/56/09 dated 25/3/2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Pune-III For approval and signature: Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) ============================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Yes
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes
authorities?
=============================================================
M/s. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd.
:
Appellants
VS
Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III
Respondents
Appearance
Shri Aqeel Sheerazi, Advocate for Appellants
Shri B.P. Pereira, JDR Authorized Representative
CORAM:
Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Date of decision : 18/11/2010
ORDER NO.
Per : Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
By the impugned order, the refund claim of the appellant was rejected by the lower authorities on the ground that the appellant failed to produce the original invoice which was cancelled subsequently by them against which they have paid the duty while raising the invoice. As the goods were not moved from their factory, the refund claim was filed for the duty paid invoices.
2. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that in this case the appellant raised invoice No.13376 on 6.3.2007. Later on, it was found that goods are not required to be sent to their Wada Unit, the invoice was cancelled. As the duty was paid on the above said invoice, the refund claim was filed. The show cause notice was issued to the appellant to produce the original invoice and a certificate from the Range Superintendent of the Wada unit to ascertain whether the credit against the impugned invoices has been availed by the Wada Unit or not? He also submitted that the original invoice was misplaced but they produced the duplicate invoice and a communication from Range Superintendent, Wada unit was also sent to the adjudicating authority but the refund claim was denied on the ground that original invoice can be misused by unscrupulous person. He also submitted that the name of consignee in the impugned invoice is Wada Unit and their address is also mentioned in the invoice. Except Wada Unit, nobody can take the credit of the said invoice. He also filed the certificate issued by Chartered Accountant certifying that no credit has been taken by the Wada Unit.
3. On the other hand, the learned DR submitted that in this case it is an admitted fact that appellant has failed to produce the original invoice which was cancelled by them. They have also not informed to the department in time of cancellation of the impugned invoice. He further submitted that to sanction refund claim, the original invoice is an necessary document. As the appellant has failed to produce original invoice, the lower authorities has rightly rejected the refund claim.
4. Heard and considered.
5. In the facts and circumstances of this case it is admitted fact that original invoice has been misplaced and same has not been produced before the lower authorities, which is a mandatory requirement to sanction the refund claim. Hence, I do not find any infirmity with the impugned order wherein the lower appellate authority has rightly rejected the refund claim for non production of original invoice which is a necessary document to sanction the refund claim. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the appeal, the same is rejected.
(Dictated in court) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) Sm 3