2006 (4) TMI 434 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Double payment of duty on the same consignment due to appellant's mistake, rejection of refund claim by authorities, procedural delay in filing Annexure A, compliance with CBEC procedure, reliance on case laws, entitlement for refund.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against OIA No. 13/2003-C.E. passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Cochin. The appellants mistakenly paid duty twice on the same consignment of Motor Spirit and HSD sent to M/s. IOC, Irigur, leading to double payment of duty. The consignee correctly accounted for the goods as non-duty paid and discharged the duty liability upon clearance. The authorities had rejected the refund claim, stating it should be filed by the consignee M/s. IOC. The appellant challenged this decision, arguing that the procedural delay in filing Annexure A was not justified as per the CBEC rules. They relied on case laws to support their claim for refund.

The learned Advocate for the appellants contended that the payment of duty twice on the same goods was undisputed, and the procedural delay should not be a reason to reject the refund claim. The CBEC rules allow 90 days for filing Annexure A, which was complied with in this case. The appellant also cited relevant case laws to strengthen their argument for refund entitlement. On the other hand, the Revenue representative argued that the appellants disregarded the prescribed procedure, and rectifying it at a later stage should not be permitted, thus claiming the appellants were not entitled to a refund.

Upon careful review of the case records, the Tribunal found that the double payment of duty was established beyond doubt, and the department did not dispute this fact. The rejection of the refund claim on technical grounds was deemed unjustified. Since M/s. IOC accounted for the goods as non-duty paid and fulfilled the duty liability, the appellant's claim for refund was considered valid. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned OIA and granting consequential relief, if any. The operative portion of the order was pronounced in open court at the conclusion of the hearing.