2004 (12) TMI 574 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Refund claim under Rule 173L of Central Excise Rules, 1944 rejected on the ground of time bar.

Analysis:
The case involved two appeals filed by the Revenue against Orders-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Hyderabad. The appeals were related to refund claims filed by the Respondents under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The refund claims were rejected on the basis of being time-barred as they were filed beyond the stipulated time period. The relevant date for filing the claims was determined under Section 11B(5)(B) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and it was found that the claims were submitted much later than the prescribed deadline, thus rendering them hit by the limitation of time.

In the first case (E/519/2003), the Respondent had filed a refund claim for a specific amount under Rule 173L, arising from duty paid goods received in the factory for reprocessing and subsequent clearance. The goods were received on a certain date, and the refund claim was rejected due to being time-barred. Similarly, in the second case (E/561/2003), the Respondent had filed another refund claim for a different amount under the same rule, for goods received for reprocessing and subsequent clearance, which was also rejected on the grounds of being beyond the prescribed time limit. The adjudicating authority had rejected the claims due to non-compliance with the conditions of Rule 173L, including failure to re-despatch the goods after reprocessing within the stipulated time.

The Commissioner (Appeals) had relied on a previous Tribunal decision to allow the refund claims, stating that the claims were not hit by time limitation. However, the Revenue contended that the Tribunal decision cited by the Commissioner was not applicable to the current case, as the facts were different. The Revenue argued that the Respondents had not submitted a formal application or letter for refund within the stipulated time, but had only filed a D3 intimation for the receipt of goods under Rule 173L, which, according to the Revenue, did not qualify as an application for refund.

During the hearing, the Respondents' consultant argued that Rule 173L was a self-contained rule, and the filing of the D3 intimation indicated an intention to claim a refund subsequently, thus negating the need for a separate refund claim. On the other hand, the Revenue argued that all conditions of Rule 173L needed to be fulfilled for a refund claim to be valid, and emphasized the importance of adhering to the specified time period for filing such claims.

After considering the arguments presented by both parties, the Tribunal agreed with the Revenue's contention that compliance with all conditions of Rule 173L within the specified time period was essential for eligibility for a refund. Since the refund claims in question were filed well beyond the stipulated time, the Tribunal concluded that they were indeed time-barred. The Tribunal disagreed with the view that Rule 173L was a self-contained rule, stating that a separate refund claim was necessary. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) orders and allowed the Revenue's appeals. The judgment was pronounced in open court on a specific date.