9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2003 (11) TMI 444 - AT - Central Excise
Issues: Interpretation of Rule 173L of Central Excise Rules, 1944 regarding refund of duty on reprocessed goods.
Analysis: 1. The primary issue in this case revolves around the interpretation of Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 concerning the refund of duty on reprocessed goods. The appellant relied on a previous judgment by the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Metazinc (India) Ltd., which allowed manufacturers to claim a refund of duty paid on defective goods at the initial clearance point of reprocessed goods, even if cleared without actual duty payment. On the other hand, the respondent cited a judgment by the Kolkata Bench in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta-IV v. Fort William Co. Ltd., which held that if reprocessed goods attract zero payment due to an exemption, the refund amount shall be zero. 2. Upon careful examination of the provisions of sub-rule (iv) of Rule 173L, it was established that the refund of duty on reissued goods after reprocessing should be based on the duty actually payable at the clearance point of reprocessed goods from the factory. If the payment at that time is less than the duty paid on the defective goods initially cleared, the refund should be equivalent to the lower duty amount paid on the reprocessed goods. In cases where reprocessed goods are exempt from duty payment, the refundable amount would be reduced to zero as per the correction factor stipulated in the sub-rule. 3. The presiding authority concluded that the interpretation of law provided by the Kolkata Bench in the Fort William Co. Ltd. case was correct and should be applied in the present situation. However, due to conflicting views from the Mumbai Bench in the Metazinc India case, the matter was referred to the President for resolution by obtaining the opinion of the Larger Bench. The Registry was directed to present the case before the Honourable President for further instructions, indicating the need to resolve the conflict between the differing interpretations of the law.
|
