2003 (9) TMI 367 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against refund claims rejection under Rule 173L for goods sent for exhibition and later reconditioned and cleared again.

Analysis:
The case involved 14 Orders-in-Original rejecting refund claims by the assessees for goods initially sent for exhibition and later reconditioned. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication orders, allowing the refund claims. The Revenue filed a joint appeal against this decision, followed by supplementary appeals with COD applications, which were allowed. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the supplementary appeals.

The appeals focused on the interpretation of Rule 173L regarding refund of duty paid on excisable goods sent for home consumption, returned for reconditioning, and cleared again. The Addl. Commissioner rejected the refund claims, arguing that goods sent for exhibition did not fall under Rule 173L. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) disagreed, stating that the cases fell within the rule's provisions.

During the hearing, it was noted that the ground of not maintaining prescribed registers under Rule 173L was not raised in the show cause notices. The Tribunal observed that the goods were returned after exhibition and cleared again after recalibration, with no dispute on these facts. As a result, the Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to establish a case and upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals), rejecting the Revenue's appeals.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision allowing the refund claims under Rule 173L for goods initially sent for exhibition and later reconditioned and cleared again. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's argument and rejected their appeals, affirming the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in favor of the assessees.