Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Plastics Converters vs Collector Of Central Excise on 27 June, 1991
Equivalent citations: 1995(76)ELT167(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER P.K. Desai, Member (J)
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. R-797/B-n-521/87/12557, dated 19-8-1988 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, confirming the Order-in-Original No. V-l8II(18) 67/85 dated 30-9-1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Dv. VIII, Bombay II rejecting part of the appellants claim for refund on the ground that they had failed to produce the triplicate copy of the GP-1 for the said period.
2. Shri D.D. Gwalani, the Ld Advocate on behalf of the appellants submitted that Section 11B of the CESA does not provide for production of triplicate copy of the Gate Pass No. 1 and that production is called for as per the executive instructions just with a view to curb double refund of duty amount. He submitted that the appellants are prepared to furnish security by way of bank guarantee. He further submitted that except GP-ls, all the relevant documents in relation to the claim are with the department and by way of safety measure the Department could have made an endorsement in the PLA. He further submitted that the appellants could not have claimed the refund earlier as the same arose only on the decision in their favour by the Collector (Appeals). In his submission, for the future safeguard, they are prepared to bind them down to the conditions as the Tribunal may give.
3. Shri Mondal, the Ld SDR, submitted that the production of GP-1 is sought for to safeguard against duplication of the claim and that the departmental authorities are duty bound to take safeguard against such duplication.
4. Having considered the submissions, the production of triplicate copy of GP- ls is merely on account of executive instructions and not the statutory requirements. The administrative instructions are given to safeguard against the double payments but if that instructions in the given case could not be complied with, it may not be proper for the department to reject the claim in toto if the department has otherwise sufficient materials available to ascertain the claim and has sufficient measure available to safeguard against the duplicate payment. Though I may not be inclined to hold that the Department was not justified in insisting on complying with the instructions, in this particular case it appears that the department could entertain the claim by ascertaining the amount and may evolve some full proof machnery to provide the safeguard against the duplication of the claim. In my view, an affidavit on the part of the appellants to the effect that they have so far not claimed the amount and giving an undertaking that they should not claim the same again supported by a bank guarantee for a period of six months for the amount for which the claim to be allowed, for this period. On complying with the above direction, the Department should entertain the claim for refund on its merits and sanction the same if otherwise admissible.
5. Orders of the authorities below are therefore set aside and the matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority to decide the case as per the observations made hereinabove.