2004 (3) TMI 463 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the order of the CCE (Appeals) regarding the process of repacking under Rule 173M.
2. Compliance with Rule 173M requirements for refund eligibility.
3. Observance of procedure under Annexure 49.
4. Confirmation of repacking and clearance procedure by the Superintendent of Central Excise.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the order of the CCE (Appeals) concerning the requirement of the process of repacking under Rule 173M. The CCE (Appeals) held that the conditions specified under Rule 173M, such as giving intimation of receipt of goods, informing re-entry within 24 hours, and maintaining separate accounts, were followed by the appellants. The Adjudicating Authority's ground of rejection, which stated that repacking should have been supervised by a Central Excise Officer, was found to not be a requirement under Rule 173M. The CCE (Appeals) concluded that once it was established that the consignment had suffered duty twice and all procedures under Rule 173M were adhered to, the refund claim could not be denied. The Tribunal found that the appellants had indeed complied with all the requirements of Rule 173M and were rightfully eligible for the refund.

2. The Tribunal considered the issue of compliance with Rule 173M requirements for refund eligibility. It was noted that the appellants had followed all the procedures as laid down under Rule 173M. The Tribunal found that the grounds on which the refund claim had been rejected were not tenable, as the conditions under Rule 173M had been met. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld that the appellants were rightly eligible for the refund based on their compliance with Rule 173M.

3. The Tribunal addressed the observance of the procedure under Annexure 49. It was argued that the assessee had failed to observe the procedure laid down in terms of Annexure 49, leading to the conclusion not being possible. However, it was found that Annexure 49 applied to Rule 173MM and not Rule 173M. As no evidence was presented to show that Annexure 49 applied to Rule 173M, the ground taken was deemed irrelevant by the Tribunal.

4. Lastly, the Tribunal considered the confirmation of repacking and clearance procedure by the Superintendent of Central Excise. The Superintendent confirmed the repacking of goods under the brand name 'Fulgram' and the clearance procedure under the cover of invoice after payment of duty. These submissions were taken cognizance of by the CCE (Appeals) and were not controverted in the grounds raised. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the second ground raised and dismissed the appeal without valid grounds.