Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Boc India Ltd vs Cce, Chennai on 20 August, 2015
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI E/62/2008 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 135/2004 dated 16.11.2004, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai). M/s. BOC India Ltd. : Appellant Vs. CCE, Chennai : Respondent
Appearance None For the appellant Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) For the respondent CORAM Honble Shri R. PERIASAMI, Technical Member FINAL ORDER No. 40998 / 2015 Date of Hearing/Decision: 20.08.2015 The appellant filed this appeal against the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 16.04.2004.
2. The adjudicating authority had rejected the refund claim on the excess duty paid by the appellant consequent on finalization of provisional assessment for the year 2002-03. Since adjustment was not allowed while finalization of assessment, the appellant filed the refund claim. The adjudicating authority has rejected the refund claim on the grounds that the appellants were failed to submit the depot invoices and other details for verification. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by this the appellants filed appeal before this Tribunal.
3. None appeared on behalf of the appellant, in spite of the appeal was fixed for hearing on 10.3.14, 27.06.14, 17.04.15, 05.06.15, 08.07.15 and 15.07.15. The appellants were issued notice for last opportunity on 08.07.2015. In spite of that none appeared nor any communication received. Therefore, the appeal is taken up for disposal on merits and documents available on record.
4. Ld. AR reiterated the findings in the impugned order and submits that the appellants were failed to submit the relevant depot invoices for sanctioned the refund in respect of excess payment and they have also not furnished other invoices and supporting documents for verification pertaining to the refund claim for the period April to December, 2003. Further, he submits that refund claim was rightly rejected by the adjudicating authority.
5. On perusal of the documents and grounds of appeal, I find that the appellants have filed the refund claim of the excess payment made but failed to produce documentary evidence such as depot invoices and the duty payment particulars and also I find that neither they have produced it before the adjudicating authority nor before the lower appellate authority and also failed to substantiate their grounds before this Tribunal. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is rejected.
(Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court) (R. PERIASAMI) TECHNICAL MEMBER BB 1