2006 (3) TMI 374 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on time bar and applicability of Rule 173L for refund claim.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the Final Order rejecting a refund claim for excisable goods cleared in DTA, brought back to the factory, and then exported without duty payment. The lower authorities rejected the refund claim citing the goods were actually exported without duty payment and the claim was time-barred. The appellant contended that duty paid goods exported are eligible for refund under Rule 12 and filed the claim within the one-year time limit from the goods' crossing the Indian frontiers. Additionally, the appellant argued that the decision relied upon by the lower authority was per incuriam due to a contradictory view in another case. The appellant also cited a case supporting the right to claim refund under Rule 173L upon re-processing goods in the factory.

The appellant's advocate argued that the goods, initially cleared in DTA with duty payment, were rightfully exported to Bangladesh, making them eligible for duty refund. The claim was filed within the one-year limit from the relevant date of export, as required by Section 11B(1). The advocate also highlighted the inconsistency in the decision relied upon by the lower authority, indicating it was not good law due to a subsequent contradictory view. Moreover, a precedent case was presented to support the appellant's entitlement to a refund under Rule 173L upon bringing back goods for re-processing in the factory.

The Revenue representative acknowledged the appellant's eligibility for a refund on merit but contended the claim was time-barred as it was filed after a significant delay from the original duty payment period. However, the Tribunal noted that the goods, having undergone duty payment and subsequent export, qualified for a refund. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant that the limitation period should be calculated from the goods' crossing of Indian frontiers, thus deeming the refund claim timely. Given the per incuriam status of the decision relied upon by the lower authority and the supporting case law, the Tribunal found the impugned order lacked merit. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief.