2004 (7) TMI 429 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Refusal of recall of final order due to non-appearance, Allegation of party's request for decision on merits, Rejection of refund claim under Rule 173H and Chapter Note 6 of Chapter 34 of the Tariff.

Refusal of Recall of Final Order:
The appellants filed an application for the recall of the Final Order, alleging that they had intimated the registry about their desire for a decision on merits without personal appearance. The Bench had not been informed of this request during the passing of the final order. The Tribunal allowed the Recall of Order on this ground, and the appeal was to be decided on merits as requested by the appellants.

Allegation of Request for Decision on Merits:
Since the appellants sought a decision on merits, the Judge heard the learned JDR on the merits of the appeal. The appeal was against the Order-in-Appeal affirming the Order-in-Original that rejected the refund claim of the appellants amounting to Rs. 27,225. The appellants, engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods, claimed a refund under Rule 173H and Chapter Note 6 of Chapter 34 of the Tariff. However, the Tribunal found that the refund claim was rightly rejected as the appellants received goods under Rule 173H, repacked and redispached them without paying duty under the said rule, and chose to pay duty later. The Tribunal held that the D-3 intimation filed by the appellants could not be considered under Rule 173L, and they did not follow the prescribed procedure. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to reject the refund claim.

Rejection of Refund Claim under Rule 173H:
The Tribunal determined that the appellants did not comply with the procedures under Rule 173H and Chapter Note 6 of Chapter 34 of the Tariff. Despite receiving goods under Rule 173H and repacking them, they chose to redispach the goods without initially paying duty as required. The Tribunal noted that the appellants did not pay duty even under Rule 173H at the time of clearance, opting to pay later. As a result, the Tribunal found no merit in the appellants' argument and dismissed their appeal against the rejection of the refund claim.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the issues involved, the Tribunal's decision on each issue, and the legal reasoning behind the dismissal of the appeal.