2005 (8) TMI 510 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Rule 173H of Central Excise Rules, 1944 regarding the return of duty paid goods to the factory.
2. Requirement of permission from Chief Commissioner under Rule 173H(3) for certain cases.
3. Circumstances under which permission under Rule 173H(3) is necessary.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Interpretation of Rule 173H regarding return of duty paid goods
The appellant argued that under Rule 173H, the assessee must file an intimation in form D-3 with the jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise within 24 hours of returning duty paid goods to the factory. The goods in question were returned without payment of duty before the intimation was received by the Range Office, and the appellant did not seek permission from the Chief Commissioner under Rule 173H(3). The appellant contended that the appeal should be allowed based on these grounds.

Issue 2: Requirement of permission under Rule 173H(3)
The respondent, on the other hand, argued that in cases covered by Rule 173H(2) where duty paid goods are returned, permission from the Chief Commissioner is not required. The goods in this case were returned under Rule 173H(2), and therefore, the respondent believed that no permission from the Commissioner was necessary, urging for the appeal to be dismissed.

Issue 3: Circumstances necessitating permission under Rule 173H(3)
The judgment highlighted that the goods in question were stolen while in transit, recovered by the police, and released to the respondent by the Judicial Magistrate against a bank guarantee. The goods were received at the factory and duly accounted for, with the intimation sent to the concerned office as required. The circumstances leading to the return of the goods were beyond the control of the respondent, and as per Rule 173H(2)(D), no permission was needed for such returns. The judgment emphasized that Rule 173H(3) pertains to other duty paid goods not specified under sub-rule II, and in the present case, the circumstances did not warrant the application of Rule 173H(3). Consequently, the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified the interpretation of Rule 173H regarding the return of duty paid goods, the necessity of permission under Rule 173H(3) in specific cases, and the circumstances under which such permission is required.