Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Yazaki Wiring Technologies India Pvt. ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 25 November, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
Appeal No.E/41626/2016
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.222/2016 (CXA-II) dt. 23.6.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-II), Chennai]
Yazaki Wiring Technologies India Pvt. Ltd.
Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise,
Chennai-III Respondent
Appearance:
Ms. Sridevi, Advocate For the Appellant Shri A. Cletus, ADC (AR) For the Respondent CORAM:
Honble Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Date of hearing/decision : 25.11.2016 FINAL ORDER No.42334/2016 The facts of the case are that appellants had raised supplementary invoice for Rs.73,59,436/- against Wiring Harness supplied to Manufacturing and Spare Parts Divisions of M/s.Daimler India Commercial Vehicle, Oragadam and paid excise duty thereon. Subsequently, however, M/s.Daimler India returned the supplementary invoice requesting the appellant to raise two revised supplementary invoices separately for their Spare Parts Division and Manufacturing Division for accounting purpose. Accordingly, appellant raised two invoices both dated 14.8.2013 for which duty was once again discharged by them. They filed refund application for refund of excise duty of Rs.7,71,013/- paid by them against the first supplementary invoice dt. 30.3.2013. Refund claim was rejected by the original authority on the ground of unjust enrichment. Appeal filed by appellant was rejected by Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order. Hence this appeal.
2. Today when the matter came up for hearing, Ms. Sridevi, Ld. Advocate drew my attention to letter of M/s.Daimler India filed at page 35 of the appeal folder, wherein M/s.Daimler India have mentioned that they have not accounted the invoice. Ld. Advocate states that M/s.Daimler India also did not make payment against first supplementary invoice dt. 30.3.2013. She also drew my attention to Chartered Accountant certificate at page 36 of the appeal folder and contended that in the circumstances they are fully entitled for sanction of the refund.
3. On the other hand, Ld. A.R Shri A. Cletus, ADC pointed out that appellant had not submitted all the required documents in support of their claim before refund sanctioning authority, in particular, copies of the books of account indicating that amounts were recoverable.
4. To this, ld. Advocate conceded that they had not submitted the documents.
5. It is seen that this is a case where the original supplementary invoice was returned by M/s.Daimler India for cancellation without accounting it in their books of account and without making any payment thereof. The Chartered Accountant certificate also certifies this fact. However, it appears that all the relied upon documents were not placed before the original authority while deciding the claim. For this reason, the matter is being remanded to the original authority to enable the appellant to produce the same or any other evidence that they may wish to submit in support of their claim. For this purpose, original authority will give a reasonable opportunity to the appellant. The de novo order will be passed by original authority only after giving such opportunity. Appeal is allowed by way of remand.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (MADHU MOHAN DAMODHAR) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) gs 4