2003 (1) TMI 597 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether duty paid under Section 3A can be considered as duty paid under Section 3 for refund purposes.
2. Whether duty paid during the period of non-production of Non-Alloy Steel Ingots is refundable.
3. Whether the appellants are entitled to a refund based on their argument of excess duty payment.

Analysis:
1. The appellants contended that the duty paid under Section 3A should be considered as duty paid under Section 3 for refund purposes. The department rejected the refund claim stating that duty under Section 3A cannot be treated as duty paid under Section 3, and the amount paid from Modvat credit was not refundable under Section 11B. The adjudicating authority and the first appellate authority upheld this decision. The tribunal agreed with the department, emphasizing that duty paid under Section 3 for Alloy Steel Castings cannot be refunded as duty under Section 3A for Non-Alloy Steel Ingots. The appeal on this ground was dismissed.

2. During a period of non-production of Non-Alloy Steel Ingots, the appellants manufactured other Steel Castings chargeable under Section 3 and paid duty for them. They also applied for abatement of duty during this period. The tribunal noted that the duty paid for the Steel Castings during non-production of Non-Alloy Steel Ingots was valid and not eligible for refund. The abatement granted during this period further supported the legality of the duty payment. Therefore, the tribunal rejected any claim for refund related to duty paid during the non-production period.

3. The appellants argued that any duty paid under Section 3 during the period of dispute, after already paying duty based on the Annual Capacity of Production, should be considered as excess payment eligible for a refund. The tribunal disagreed, stating that the duty paid for Alloy Steel Castings during the non-production period was valid and not in excess. As the duty was correctly paid based on the goods manufactured during that time, no refund was warranted. The tribunal found no merit in the appeal and rejected it based on the grounds presented by the appellants without a personal hearing.

This judgment clarifies the distinction between duty paid under different sections of the Central Excise Act, emphasizing that duty paid for specific goods cannot be refunded based on duty paid for different goods. Additionally, it highlights the validity of duty payments made during periods of non-production and the impact of abatement on refund claims.