2003 (8) TMI 323 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
Refund claims under Rule 173L of Central Excise Rules rejected due to lack of verification and proper record maintenance.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Lack of Verification by Revenue Authorities
The appellants filed refund claims under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules for duty paid on defective goods returned to their factory. The Revenue authorities rejected the claims citing lack of verification of the defective goods. The appellants argued that they had duly filed D-3 intimations regarding the receipt of defective goods, which obligated the Revenue to conduct verification. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not dispute the filing of D-3 intimations by the appellants. Therefore, the Tribunal held that if the Revenue failed to verify the defective goods, they could not deny the refund claims on the grounds of lack of verification.

Issue 2: Proper Record Maintenance
Another contention raised by the Revenue was the alleged lack of proper record maintenance by the appellants regarding the movement of defective goods in their factory. The appellants argued that they maintained a register authenticated by Revenue authorities, detailing the receipt of defective goods, reprocessing, and clearance after payment of duty. The Tribunal observed that Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules mandates maintaining detailed accounts of returned goods and their processing. The Tribunal found that the appellants' register, despite no prescribed proforma, demonstrated substantial compliance with the rule. Citing precedents like Heriss Machine Pvt. Ltd. and Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., the Tribunal emphasized that the right to claim refund under Rule 173L is substantive and cannot be denied based on technicalities when the Department fails to discharge its statutory functions.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the appellants had fulfilled the requirements of Rule 173L by filing D-3 intimations and maintaining a detailed record of defective goods. As the Revenue had not conducted verification and the appellants' record-keeping was deemed sufficient, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders rejecting the refund claims. Consequently, the appeals were allowed in favor of the appellants.