By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, JAN 27, 2017: A refund claim was filed as a consequence of the CESTAT order upholding the claim of the appellant for refund (after it was rejected by the lower authorities.)

The original authority rejected their claim for refund of Rs.5,16,984/-on the ground of failure to produce documents relevant to evincing that credit has accumulated because output had been exported by M/s Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co for whom appellants were producing 'made-up articles' out of fabrics supplied by the principal.

The appellant is again before the CESTAT.

The Bench observed -

++ The lower authorities appear to have considered this order of the Tribunal to be a mere advice to the original authority to decide on the claim afresh. Accordingly, they expected the appellant to furnish evidence to establish that the inputs did pertain to goods that were exported and rejected the application for alleged failure to do so.

++ The order of the Tribunal is unequivocal and, by no stretch, can it be seen as a remand order. The original authority is merely expected to release the refund and not subject the appellant to the quasi-judicial process once again. The first appellate authority appears also to have raised fresh grounds for denying the refund in clear disregard of judicial discipline. Once consequential relief is ordered, the lower authorities are deprived of the power to reject; otherwise, the appellate hierarchy will serve no purpose.

++ Failure to sanction refund, whether out of obduracy or out of ignorance, does no credit to the officers concerned. In the normal course, imposing costs on the lower authorities would have been in order but the matter is not of the recent past. The present status of the officers concerned is not known and it is that, and that alone, which deters the imposition of costs.

The appeal was allowed and the competent authority was directed to implement the order of the Tribunal.

(See 2017-TIOL-250-CESTAT-MUM)