Per K.K. Bhatia :

The appellants are a SSI Unit manufacturing LDPE lock grips seal bags falling under Sub-heading 3923.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They exported these goods and claimed a refund of the duty of Rs. 88,291/-, 98,706/- and 1,38,271.70 in their three claims in respect of the accumulated modvat credit under Rule 57F (13) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The first mentioned two amounts were sanctioned by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Amravati Division vide his order dated 30.3.2000 and another order of even date. However, the Deputy Commissioner issued two separate show cause notices dated 14.8.2000 for the recovery of these amounts on the ground that they had not followed AR-4 procedure and after considering the submissions of the party, by two separate orders both dated 6.10.2000, he ordered for the recovery of the aforestated amounts. The party filed appeals against these orders but the same are dismissed by a common order dated 31.3.2001 by the Commissioner (Appeals), Bhopal.

2. As regards the refund claim of Rs. 1,38,271.70, the same is rejected by the Deputy Commissioner vide his order dated 4.10.2000 and the appeal filed by the party against this order is also rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals), Bhopal vide his order dated 31.1.2000.

3. These are second stage appeals filed by the party. I have heard Shri R.G. Sheth, Advocate for the appellants and Shri A.S. Bedi, SDR for the respondents. The learned advocate for the appellants relies on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Chandigarh Vs. Kanwal Engineers - 1996 (16) RLT 199=1996 (87) ELT-141 (T) in which it is held that the refund of modvat credit of duty on the export goods is admissible on the strength of bill of lading or shipping bill and these documents can be considered as valid documents in the absence of AR-4. The learned JDR for the respondent reiterates the findings arrived at by the original as well as the appellate authorities in their respective orders.

4. I have carefully considered the submissions made before me. As already stated above, the refund claims admissible to the appellants on merits are sought to be denied to them only on the ground that they did not followed AR-4 procedure. It is well settled that the substantial right of the party cannot be denied merely on the ground of not following the procedural provisions. The present matter is squarely covered in favour of the appellants in terms of the ratio of the aforestated case of Kanwal Engineers. There is no valid ground on which the refund claims admissible to the appellants could be denied on the ground of their not following the AR-4 procedure. I, therefore, set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeals with consequential relief, if any.