2005 (8) TMI 509 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Refund of duty paid on unreacted C4 Reffinate returned to the appellant's factory and used captively by them under Notification No. 28/89-C.E.

Analysis:
The case involved the appellants manufacturing different Petrochemicals and Chemicals, including C4 Raffinate supplied to M/s. Gujarat Petrosynthese Ltd. The issue revolved around the refund of duty paid on the unreacted C4 Reffinate returned to the appellants' factory and used captively by them. The denial of the refund was based on the argument that the returned stream of C4 Reffinate was different from the original one sent to M/s. GPL, as it was used in the manufacturing process of Polyisonutylene. The Commissioner upheld the rejection of the refund claim, stating that the returned C4 Raffinate was distinct from the initially sent product.

Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal analyzed the classification of the returned stream of C4R. The Commissioner contended that the returned product was different without specifying a particular classification. However, based on a previous decision in IPCL & Anr. v. CCE, Vadodara, it was established that the returned stream of C4R should also be classified under Chapter Heading 2711.19, the same as the original product. Therefore, the Commissioner's argument that the returned product was different was rejected, and the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, stating they were entitled to a refund of duty paid on the returned C4R under relevant notifications, subject to the provisions of unjust enrichment as per Section 11B.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, granting the refund of duty paid on the unreacted C4 Reffinate returned to the appellants' factory, as it was found to fall under the same classification as the original product, in accordance with the relevant notifications and legal provisions.