2004 (9) TMI 501 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Refund of duty for goods cleared for export but brought back and cleared again, payment of double duty, rejection of refund claim.

Analysis:
1. Refund of Duty Issue:
The appeal concerns the refund of duty amounting to Rs. 4,87,321/- paid by the appellants for goods cleared for export but subsequently brought back to their factory and cleared again on payment of duty. The appellants had initially cleared the goods "Amoxycillin Trihydrate Compact BP/USP" for export, but due to the cancellation of the export order, they retrieved the goods and cleared them once more, paying duty again. The Department did not dispute that the goods brought back were the same as those initially cleared for export. The Tribunal found that the appellants had paid double duty for the same goods, making them eligible for a refund. The rejection of their refund claim by lower authorities was deemed incorrect, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the appeal with any consequential relief under the law.

2. Double Duty Payment Issue:
Upon reviewing the records, it was evident that the appellants had indeed paid duty twice for the same goods. Despite the initial clearance for export and subsequent re-clearance after bringing the goods back following the export order cancellation, the goods remained the same. The Tribunal determined this as a clear case of double duty payment, warranting a refund for the excess duty paid. The authorities' failure to acknowledge this double payment led to the wrongful rejection of the refund claim, prompting the Tribunal to overturn the impugned order and grant relief to the appellants.

3. Rejection of Refund Claim Issue:
The core issue revolved around the rejection of the appellants' refund claim by the lower authorities. The Tribunal, after thorough examination of the facts and applicable rules, concluded that the appellants were entitled to the refund of duty due to the payment of double duty for the same goods. The rejection of the refund claim was deemed erroneous, prompting the Tribunal to set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal in favor of the appellants. The decision highlighted the importance of adhering to the principles of duty payment and refund entitlement, ensuring fair treatment for taxpayers in such cases.