9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (10) TMI 396 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
Rejection of refund claim by authorities. Analysis: The case involved the rejection of a refund claim by the authorities. The appellants, who were manufacturers of Polyster Chips, Polyster films, and Polyster Filament Yarn, had cleared Polyster Film (T.F.-12 Grade) from their factory but brought back some quantity for further processing due to technical problems. They filed proper D-3 declarations and relevant documents to the Revenue authorities, who verified the declarations. The appellants then cleared the goods for "Export under Bond" from their factory after rectifying defects, debiting the B1 Bond Register. They submitted proof of export and claimed a refund of duty paid under Rule 173L on the goods received back. A show cause notice was issued for rejecting the refund claim, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellants argued that the goods were cleared under Bond from their factory, equating the debits made in the Bond Register to those made in PLA/RG23A, Part II Registers. They contended that clearances for export under Bond are considered duty discharged goods, citing relevant case law. The Revenue authorities, however, argued that the appellants were not eligible for a refund as they had not discharged duty from PLA/RG23AA Part II, considering clearances under Bond as removal of goods on payment of a nil rate of duty. After considering both sides, the Tribunal found that the goods were originally cleared from the factory, received back, and exported after processing. The appellants had executed a B1 Bond and maintained proper records. Refund under Rule 173L contemplates duty payable after reprocessing, not actual payment of duty. Citing precedents, the Tribunal held that the refund was admissible as the goods were not exempted, and duty was payable on them. Since the adjudicating authority had already verified the claim and restricted the refund amount, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order-in-appeal dated 6-10-2003.
|
